PA28R G-EGVA missing UK to Le Touquet (and AAIB discussion)

alioth wrote:

but the appeal upheld that the AAIB report was admissible.

Really bad news. Now every aviation-related person would say “no comment” to the AAIB in case of an accident or incident. :(

you need an ATPL flying license to work for AAIB as operation inspector for obvious reasons

Only to brow-beat the inferior and unwashed who are below your rank. An ATPL implies special knowledge of not very much at all… you can get one without any scientific education whatsoever (and many do), or actually any education past 16.

(Electrical or Aeronautical Engineering degree for flight recording & engineering branches)

That makes sense.

But we are digressing

The radar track for this flight will be really interesting and will likely provide the answer.

arj1 wrote:

Really bad news. Now every aviation-related person would say “no comment” to the AAIB in case of an accident or incident. :(

Bad news for aviators perhaps, good news for the legal system.

Can you imagine being the judge in such a case, and how absurd it would be for the sole unbiased and authoritative narrative of events, a painstaking technical evaluation of all the relevant factors, to be considered inadmissible as a matter of policy?

AAIB reports are not produced for the purposes of apportioning blame. That is not the same thing as saying they cannot be used for apportioning blame. Most accidents and incidents never get near a court anyway, but surely if it becomes legally necessary to apportion blame then the report should be taken into consideration.

I’m not sure the consequence you suggest necessarily follows. If someone says “no comment” to the AAIB when clearly they should be giving their version of events, that is going to look pretty poor in court and the opposition barrister will make much of it. Unless you have been totally stupid / negligent / illegal you’re probably better just telling the truth.

@Peter is right. The AAIB is independent of the CAA and does very good work, but they’re the same set of people who all know each other. Phone calls will be made, favours called in, pressure brought to bear, etc.

Graham wrote:

I’m not sure the consequence you suggest necessarily follows. If someone says “no comment” to the AAIB when clearly they should be giving their version of events, that is going to look pretty poor in court and the opposition barrister will make much of it. Unless you have been totally stupid / negligent / illegal you’re probably better just telling the truth.

Previously people could have been more honest about what has happened. Even if they were at fault (to a degree), like with Sala plane, there could be other reasons why the accident has acually happened. In the new world, if you think there is ANY chance that someone COULD prosecute you (and CAA always could for any rules violations), then there is an incentive to shut up. Why would you volunteer any information?! Why would you want to say anything or write anything? At all?

In the court of law the other side will have to prove everything and that would be hard to do (small planes don’t have black boxes) without your testimony. If the other side tries to do something and puts a blame on you, then you could advise your barrister on certain aspects of your case, how to defend you, the other team does not have that information. Previously the pilots would have been more open and might want to open up for the great good as it did not cost them anything, from now on – no.

@arj1 @alioth does anyone have any reference to any legal mechanism by which accident reports (whether aviation or maritime, in any country) are, or might previously have been, made inadmissible in a court?

Note that in most jurisdictions the mechanism would have to be at the legal end rather than the accident reporting end. It is the court that decides whether a report is admissible, not the author, and you cannot make a document inadmissible just by writing inadmissible on it.

denopa wrote:

I was taught (and would apply): straight ahead, small control inputs to minimise the load on the wings; reduce speed to Va (drop the gear to do so if need be/if you have one). Don’t care about maintaining altitude or heading.

You will still need to keep the right side up and the plane out of a spin. When practicing stalls I have sometimes seen the G5’s AI getting crossed out. Only briefly but I really wouldn’t want to test out how it will behave in severe turbulence in IMC. A mechanical AI probably won’t be any better. So, should one add hope for the best?

Peter wrote:

In a DA40, that’s very sensible. With Golze ADL you could make a more educated decision, but it is still risky, structurally, not to mention icing. Your “IFR” really wants to be VMC on top as much as possible, plus transiting through thin layers. A bit like my TB20 was, pre-full-TKS, although I also occassionally did thick IMC if it was cold enough – until this.

IMHO the DA40 is a great capable machine, but from my very limited IFR experience, I don’t push limits. It’s great for non-convective icing days, which is pretty much the bog-standard weather across Europe for 7 or 8 months of the year. I’d say Saturday was very much a risk, but there were many gaps in the weather when I flew and did not get caught out.

I’ve had a few experiences this winter that required avoiding IMC, Saturday included and you just have to plan a bit more effectively and know your soft/hard limits.

Ibra wrote:

Not downplaying the risks or advising to penetrate TCU/CB in Norther Europe but if one is caught in same cloud while IMC there is no reason to die inside? you start turning away, as long as one controls his aircraft (medium speed & power), keep their heads calm while exiting laterally the aircraft will not get split into pieces: the surface temp/dew were very low at 6C/1C, cloud tops were very low barely at FL120 and cloud base was at +3kft with no lightning strikes recorded in that area

This weather patch was very localized in time & space, I doubt much of it will show on ATC radars (unless it start load of precipitation) or WX datalinks (cell line was very shallow) or WX stormscope (there was no lightning strik recorded)

If it was something bigger it would have been obvious in forcasts and likely to have shown in TAF/METAR and would have been very visible while the aircraft was in VMC

Note that there were two other PA28 aircraft that “have punched through” that morning by deviating laterally & descending…whatever it was, this was not something that IR pilot expected and likely was in the wrong time & position when it happened

The use of WX radar & WX datalinks (live or delayed) for weather penetration in the inside while barely clocking 100kts speeds in SEP (typical penetration speed) is the ultimate prize of stupidity, 10nm cells tend to grow and die in less than 5min and the aircraft is too slow to cope, let alone ADL, Avgas is way better and cheaper, you keep the s**t to one side, you can bite the corner if looking for action or shortcut !

This is a very good contribution, the key to inadvertently entering a CB and that’s not from one’s own stupidity is to not panic. Things get very rough very quickly and you can easily panic and lose control of the aircraft. It did take me a good 10 minutes to recover mentally after going through the edge of a Summer one during IR training, but the ones in the UK, except during a Spanish Plume are recoverable.

One fine September with torrential rain in G-CIVA coming out of Heathrow we went through a massive TCU and lightning struck down the FO’s side and went down the right-hand side of the aircraft coming out at the back. The only thing not working was the chrono, which delayed the departure of the return crew by 4 hours as it’s on the MEL.

I’ve had a further two experiences in the tropics, Abuja where one lucky lady decided to get up of her seat during moderate-severe chop and lifted off the ground as went went through the smallest of the big TCUs that we could navigate. Coming out of Houston which got closed for 2 hours due to the severity of the storms was fun, we was strapped in for 45 minutes navigating the cells. Whatever we went through was rough, enough to scare the crap out of everyone including me.

When I got to the flight deck, we navigated around a cell that had a top of FL720 (According to ATC who could see it on doppler and towered over as high as we was in the cruise.).

In a nutshell, I think you are right, SEP inadvertently ending up in a CB in the UK is survivable to an extent, probably not so across the channel where convection is a lot more severe, albeit when we have a Spanish Plume.

P.s.
LTCC does have a weather radar, but I think it might just be the Met Office feed. I know once speaking to London Info they told me of the weather where I was, but I don’t think it’s an official use.

All the 2014 ruling said was that the AAIB report (which are all open public source anyway) can be used in evidence – the contents of which give admissible facts about accidents. Protected materials which are part of AAIB investigations – eg pilot statements, CVR transcripts, in cockpit video – are still inadmissible as has most recently been tested with Shoreham and the coroners requests being turned by down by High Court

https://inquestsandinquirieslawblog.com/2022/02/24/disclosure-of-protected-evidence-denied-in-inquest-following-shoreham-airshow-disaster/amp/

AAIB investigators are either operations or engineering. Operations inspectors maintain an ATPL and line fly with selected airlines to maintain currency so they have the credibility and knowledge to investigate properly; they do the operating part of the investigation – the engineers do the tech side of things.