paul1867Hmmm is there some conspiracy here? :D. The link contained within the “More details” section of the petition returns “file not found”.
paul1867As I understand it the philosophy of both AAIB and the RAIB is that it is easier to establish the truth if they do not become actually involved in attributing blame. This from the AAIB website
Our responsibilities
Our work includes:
responding quickly to air accidents and serious incidents
leading and managing the investigation team while ensuring their safety at the accident location
conducting thorough, independent, impartial and timely investigations into air accidents and serious incidents
producing reports that explain the circumstances and causes of accidents and serious incidents, without attributing blame
ensuring we follow the International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 13 and UK statutory obligations for the investigation of air accidents
providing assistance and expertise to international air accident investigations and organisations
improving aviation safety in general through education and sharing the lessons learnt from accident investigations
treating the survivors and relatives of air accident victims sympathetically, helping them understand what happened and what’s being done to prevent future accidents
Of course you and I will probably say that from the report it is possible to conclude where blame may lie. Such as putting two items together like what ever caused the crash was not properly inspected. What caused the crash : control rod end came apart due to missing locking wire. Inspection record shows that it had not been inspected.
The dustcart tragedy comes to mind which initially appears to be a tragic accident. That is until we found out that the driver had undeclared previous similar events.
As I mentioned before I am sure that the AAIB were already aware of any previous “incidents” via the CAA but the “incident” has only just come to the attention of the press requiring a “generalised” response from the police.
I do not think that the majority on here basically disagree although it is interesting to look at details of the process having the fortune of not being directly involved.
There is, of course, a lot to discuss and other threads are running on the increase in CAA and insurances charges. Whilst, of course, any death is one too many and that improvements can always be made it is difficult to see how the superb safety record in this country can be quantum improved. If it can it means everybody has not been doing their job. As a total layman I cannot see how these increased charges can produce significant improvements in safety.
paul1867It is one reason that we have Railway Police, as the regular plods do not have the skill set or knowledge to cover Rail operations.
On top of this there is also the the RAIB which is very busy!
Surely the two, the police and the AAIB have two distinctively different jobs to do. The AAIB to “investigate producing reports that explain the circumstances and causes of accidents and serious incidents, without attributing blame”, whereas the police are conducting an investigation where they have to keep in mind that they may have to refer the case to the CPS. As we see in so many TV programs they must not leave any stone unturned and results in asking many “difficult” questions. Was the wife having an affair, search behind the bath panel for missing child, where was the partner at the time of the incident. They would clearly need to interview a pilot involved in an incident at the earliest opportunity, for instance to take a breath test if medically practical. There will be some aspects of any incident that the police will be able to record. It would seem reasonable to me that a police officer was present at any interview the AAIB held with the pilot.
paul1867Charlie as you probably already knew, but I didn’t although perhaps obvious, the Inquiry is the Coroner’s court. It will be of interest to see if it will be a “jury” case.
Surely the police/CPS can take action with other verdicts as well.
If there is a motor car incident in which somebody is killed and that one party was clearly the cause and the subsequent inquiry finds that the vehicle used by the driver of cause was properly maintained and fully tested and that the driver of cause was fit to drive in all ways and had been driving normally before the event and there was no intent, you get the idea, then it is difficult to see how any verdict other than “accidental” can be returned. However, possibly the CPS could still bring a prosecution for careless driving.
Interesting as the incident at Southport may be it does not really change anything, we must await the AAIB report.
paul1867Yes indeed, Trumper, presumably the CAA keep files on all display pilots and would have known of this incident from the outset but that it has only just come into the public domain.
I think one would need to know how often there are incidents like this before understanding how this particular incident may be relevant.
paul1867Charlie – I have probably used the wrong words and meant Coroner’s Court. Is it not the Coroner’s Court that decides cause of death and any prosecution is based on this?
I was trying to be diplomatic in not being specific about said comment. Just wanted possible newcomers, who may have not seen locked thread, make comments that may lead this thread to be locked.
I am very comfortable with the level of debate on this site and I believe the “policy” regarding the discussion on Shoreham to be the correct one and support the moderation. I was totally amazed, and disgusted, at threads running on another well known forum.
paul1867I didn’t think I was, I was just querying who were investigating it and why, not the incident itself.
Not aimed at you Tony but some previous posts.
paul1867Presumably the court of inquiry will consider evidence brought by the CAA, AAIB, the police, witnesses and experts. Depending on the decision of the court of inquiry will not the CPS decide what action, if any, to take. Are the CPS able to bring a case whatever the decision of the court of inquiry?
In a none specific case it is difficult to imagine, if all service and paperwork boxes are ticked, any other verdict than “accidental” death. Although if a number of deaths are involved then possibly a “disaster” and a public inquiry.
http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-4-3-verdicts
paul1867Guys might I respectfully suggest we refrain from making DIRECT conjecture about the incident at Shoreham or we may find this thread, rightly, locked.
paul1867Said hydraulic leak immediately after engine shut down.
paul1867Surely, almost by definition, these “airframes” should/would/are rated by the National Aviation Heritage Register as “significant”, or does/would that not help? This collection must be unique not just because they are hovercraft but because they have survived. It would seem pretty stupid to loose them now.
From what I can make out the local council are keen to keep the hovercraft museum and have made provision for it in the LDP which was only approved a few months ago. All of the seaplane hangers date from around WW1 although the 2 G type are not listed and have been shortened at some time. The Google aerial view shows a large number of exhibits outside although in part this may be due to the repair work on building 40. It would seem to me that the enclave formed by the 5 WW1 seaplane hangers and the history of the site cries out for all of “Seaplane Square” and hangers to become a Hovercraft and Seaplane museum. The site was owned by a government agency but I understand has recently been sold into private hands.
Regrettably I have not been able to visit the site so do not know if the SNR4s internal spaces are used, but I would imagine so. Apart from housing exhibits it could also be a feature restaurant.
paul1867Start at 9:30 min in
paul1867From the Daedalus Supplementary Plan.
4.21 The developers of the Daedalus site will need to ensure that suitable accommodation for a
Hovercraft Museum is provided and that it can be easily accessed by the general public.
Whilst the use of existing historic hangar space close to the slipway appears to be an
appropriate location for a Hovercraft Museum other options may be considered. It is
acknowledged that the outdoor display of the hovercrafts will need to be managed to
enable flexible use of Seaplane Square by a range of users. There will also be a need to
provide facilities for related uses such as the Search and Rescue Hovercraft facilities.
Three of the hangers, J2, and their associated winch houses are now grade 2 listed. As are some buildings on adjacent land building 118 Officers Mess. However the 2 G WW1 seaplane hangers are not listed but are acknowledged as of significant historic and architectural interest. The 2 SRN4s are occupying open space outside these hangers. Thus to facilitate the creation of “Seaplane Square” for use by a range of users it is considered acceptable to “manage” the hovercraft by destroying them.
Whilst I understand that our seaplane heritage is of importance to the best of my knowledge there are no seaplanes on this site. However, the site was used for the development of hovercraft for the Royal Navy.
From what I have seen so far the destruction of one or both hovercraft is to create a designer open space.
Should there not be an SRN4 at Wroughton?
Published on the 4 Jan 2016 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-the-government-will-directly-build-affordable-homes
Daedelus Waterfront (Lee on Solent Gosport)
The Daedalus Waterfront site is part of a former MoD site. The HCA has been successful in facilitating a development programme across the wider site including a new college, an innovation centre and the delivery of new commercial units targeted at the aviation and advance manufacturing sectors. The waterfront part of the site has the potential for further commercial space aimed at the marine engineering sector as well as 249 residential units. Upfront infrastructure requirements and complexities around listed buildings on site mean the viability of development is challenging and credible bidders have been deterred. The direct commissioning pilot provides an opportunity for early delivery of housing, including starter homes, on the site along with infrastructure that will also catalyse the delivery of the wider commercial development in line with the Enterprise Zone vision.
paul1867Interestingly the museum site does not mention housing but the BBC and Thanet Gazette do.
paul1867What is it about the politicians in this country that they have so little respect for our engineering heritage?
I haven’t looked into this yet and thank those who have and left links.
I was lucky enough to have a ride across in the cockpit/bridge when I worked for Decca Radar. The cockpit is mounted midway across the roof of the car deck accessed by a pull up ladder. The vertical displacement of the roof and hence the cockpit when operating in choppy seas was something that would have to be experienced to be believed. The radar operator had tapped huge wads of foam rubber around the display and pulled his face into these to try and make himself one with the display! The radar turning unit was mounted on the cockpit roof and therefore subjected to this large vibration. The older type turning unit was not able to survive this vibration but newer Decca equipment was fitted with success. Decca is now, of course, completely gone yet at one time they supplied the world with marine radar and navigational aids and what was later to became known as Decca Navigator was used on D-Day.
Gosport does have a specific local plan for Daedalus dating from 2011 but only adopted in October 2015. The site of the museum is the old seaplane site with hangers. This area together with the area adjoining to the south east in which there are listed buildings, the officers mess etc are shown on the map as a conservation area. NO MUSEUM IS SHOWN. A planning application search for the museum, building 40, postcode has not returned any hits. Not sure what to make of this so far but housing in the area of the museum does not form part of L5 section of the LDP. More digging needed I think.
The Daedalus specific part of the plan can be found here in PDF http://www.gosport.gov.uk/sections/your-council/council-services/planning-section/local-development-framework/supplementary-planning-documents/daedalus-spd/
Sign In
