FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 0447.PDF
1 April 1960 447 After an Accident SHOULD THERE BE A NEW APPROACH jO NQUIRY PROCEDURE? A PILOT'S APPRAISAL BY C. C. JACKSON T"^HERE is at present sitting a committee* under Sir DavidCairns, QC, whose terms of reference are to advise upon civilair accident procedures and the application (one presumesmainly in respect of pilots) of licence suspension. To many in the industry this will be welcome: the procedures we currentlyempioy have been evolved in an ad hoc way, and the feeling is widespread—especially among pilots—that blame and its associatedsocial and economic penalties are not always fairly apportioned. Aircraft designers have made great advances in air safety sincethe war (I am thinking mainly of two things: the ability of the aeroplane to fly efficiently after power loss, and its ability to carrya large fuel reserve), but unfortunately some phases remain critical, e.g., those of take-off and landing. This fact and the naturalincrease in me numbers of aircraft flying mean that accident headlines will still be with us for some time to come; indeed, weshall for a period be lucky to hold the line where it is. As each unexplained accident may give rise to one from a similar cause,and as reputations of individuals, companies and even govern- ments are at stake, we may as well have inquiry procedures whichare fair to them and are abreast in speed and technology with the industry with which they are dealing.For this reason I hope that the proceedings of the Cairns Com- mittee will not take as long as some of the other 27 governmentalcommittees now in being, and that the recommendations will be CAPTAIN JACKSON has been intimatelyconcerned with inquiries into aircraft accidents since 1949, when he became technical secretaryof the newly formed International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations. He was electedthe Federation's executive secretary two years ago. In the 1939-45 war he served as a BomberCommand pilot, and until he joined IFALPA was a captain with BOAC. acted upon with vigour; for, in my view, we could scarcely havea less appropriate system than we have now. Before entering upon an examination of the procedures ofexisting inspector's and public inquiries it is pertinent to relate them to other procedures applied to our daily life. In this weare fortunate in having a useful analogy in the administrative tribunal; we are even more fortunate in having a recent andwidely accepted report on the functions and procedures of tribunals, namely the Franks Report.f The great thing in com-mon between accident investigations and administrative tribunals is that, in the interests of the community, individuals or groupsmust vindicate their position if they are not to suffer loss, and they must do so by an agency other than a court of law. As,however, the recommendations of a tribunal may have the force of law, it is clear that the rights of the individual or the group areproperly protected only if the principles of law are behind the procedures of the tribunal. This the Franks Report accepts, andit at once puts these principles down in these terms: "When we regard our subject in this light, it is clear that there are certaingeneral and closely linked characteristics which should mark these special procedures. We call these characteristics openness, fairnesstnd impartiality." Bearing in mind the technicalities involved in aircraft accidentinvestigations, I would add in their case some emphasis on thoroughness. In subsequent paragraphs I propose to show howthese four principles are inadequately met by our present system and to point to methods by which they might be met.. The worst offender is, of course, the inspector's inquiry. This « held behind closed doors and it therefore makes no pretensionsto openness. The procedures allow evidence to be taken by an arrangement under which witnesses attend at different times andnave no right and often no opportunity for cross-questioning; hearsay evidence is permitted and in this way the parties concerned *The members of the committee we: Sir David Cairns, QC, chairman;fr hrederick Tymms, KCIE, MC, FRAeS; W. L. Heyvjood, CUE; Peter Masefield, MA(Eng), FRAeS; H. C. I. Rogers, MA, MIMechEvet Accident Investigations Investigated," "Flight," October 2, 1939]. ^Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries. The public inquiry, says the author, "is too elaborate, too much of a show-piece, too slow and too expensive" will not have knowledge of all the considerations being takeninto account by the inspector. This is something rather more than unfairness; Star Chamber would be a more apt description.With regard to the third requirement, impartiality, this is closely akin to fairness; however, perhaps it is a more appropriate wordto use in relation to one aspect of inspector's inquiries—namely, the publication of the report. As with most tribunals, the partiesimmediately concerned are given an opportunity to see the report before it is published and to challenge any statement of fact. Inthe case of companies who may consider their interests prejudiced by the report, these have^ I believe, sometimes been able to putthis procedure to such effective use as to prevent the publication of the report altogether. To my knowledge there have been, inthe past three years, five accidents to British aircraft on which reports have never been published. On the other hand, I do notknow of a case where the responsibility for the accident has been placed solely at the door of the pilot and he has been able to changea word in the report—much less hold it up indefinitely. The reader will see now what I mean by impartiality. In connection with the fourth requirement, thoroughness, thisis obviously a need in both inspector's and public inquiries. The inspector's inquiry is not ipso facto less thorough than the publicinquiry; but clearly the lack of opportunity to cross-question tends to set the inquiry into a particular groove at an early stage andthis may well be to the entire neglect of other possible avenues. On the basis of the four criteria I have postulated, therefore, theinspector's inquiry shows up poorly. This is not a reflection on the individuals concerned; it is a reflection on the system underwhich they have been asked to serve. This system grew up when accidents to public transport aircraft were usually elementaryaffairs; only one manufacturer was concerned, the engineering aspects were simple, no air traffic control was involved and thenumber of personnel killed or injured were few. On the face of it, it looked a cheap and quick method of arriving at the causes ofthe accident and for setting in train remedial measures to prevent a recurrence. These features, however, now no longer obtain;and, as indicated above, the procedures are so removed from those applied elsewhere in civil life that minor adjustment is not applic-able. The only appropriate course to take is to abolish the inspector's inquiry and to accomplish its objectives by other means. The other method of accident investigation—the public inquiry—is not open to the same charges of third-rate justice as is the inspector's inquiry. It is, however, not without gravefaults. In the first place it is too elaborate, too much of a show- piece, too slow and too expensive. Justice must of course bepaid for; but in order to find out the cause of an air accident is it really essential that each party deeming itself affected shouldhave to begin by putting a solicitor through an education in aerodvnamics, aero engines, aircraft structures, rules of the air,air traSc control, licensing requirements, meteorology and aircraft communications, so that the solicitor can brief a barrister inthese subjects, so that he in turn can reveal the technological
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
