• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
9,090
It's a relatively minor/secondary point. But, the AAIU updated their investigations status document today on their website. This is what it says about R116

"A second Interim Statement was published on www.aaiu.ie on 01 Mar 2019. Investigation Ongoing."

Why doesn't it mention that a draft final report was circulated late last year? Strange is it not?
Not strange in the leastL
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
Not strange in the leastL
It is really. They list all the current investigations, including one other that has a confidential draft final report issued, but they won't or can't say that a confidential draft final report was issued for this case, even though there was. And they don't mention that a review board has been established, even though there has been, if the media is to be believed...
 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,278
"Regulation 15 (1) of the Air Navigation Regulations 2009 allows for a re-examination of “any findings and conclusions in that report that appear to reflect adversely on the person’s reputation or on the reputation of any person, living or dead, whose executor, administrator or other representative he or she is”.

Imminent General Election & Review of Draft Final Report into Rescue 116 Helicopter Crash May Further Delay "Urgent Reform" of Irish Aviation Regulation - IALPA Pilots' Union
reputation see that???? theyre lookin to see how they can get out of sayin she ****ed up!!!!
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
9,090
It is really. They list all the current investigations, including one other that has a confidential draft final report issued, but they won't or can't say that a confidential draft final report was issued for this case, even though there was. And they don't mention that a review board has been established, even though there has been, if the media is to be believed...
You have demonstrated nothing that indicates that this is unusual.

There is a simple explanation for this: the incident itself was completely unusual. There are no precedents against which it can be compared.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
9,090
reputation see that???? theyre lookin to see how they can get out of sayin she ****ed up!!!!
Jesus fùcking wept. If you cannot see the potential legal liabilities that would flow from a finding of, for instance, negligence, then there is little hope for you. There are very serious consequences attendant on the official findings and these could seriously impact the lives of surviving family members as well as the disposition of their estate. Let them take their time.
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,973
What's your point?
My recollection is that you stated earlier that the confidential draft report wouldn’t be distributed to the families of the crew (“stakeholders”) .. however from the extract I posted it seems the AAIU would have been obliged to do so in order that the families be given an advance opportunity to defend their loved ones reputations prior to publication of the final report.

Why doesn't it mention that a draft final report was circulated late last year? Strange is it not?
Everything about this investigation is strange.. particularly RTE’s documentary about an air accident prior to an AAIU report is quite bizarre.. with such public attention and media interference I don’t hold any hope of an impartial report resulting.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
You have demonstrated nothing that indicates that this is unusual.

There is a simple explanation for this: the incident itself was completely unusual. There are no precedents against which it can be compared.
Maybe we are at cross purposes here. This has nothing to do with the details of the incident. The AAIU has this very clearly laid out web page which explains the different states an investigation can be in. The information for R116 omits the fact that a draft report was issued and (apparently) a review board established. That's all. It could be a clerical error. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, but if it is an error it's a bit slipshod considering the level of public interest in the case.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
My recollection is that you stated earlier that the confidential draft report wouldn’t be distributed to the families of the crew (“stakeholders”) .. however from the extract I posted it seems the AAIU would have been obliged to do so in order that the families be given an advance opportunity to defend their loved ones reputations prior to publication of the final report.
Well, I wasn't certain about it. I said I couldnt see any particular reason why they would get it. But, if they have, then I guess that means there is some implicit or explicit criticism of the crew.
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,973
Well, I wasn't certain about it. I said I couldnt see any particular reason why they would get it. But, if they have, then I guess that means there is some implicit or explicit criticism of the crew.
The families as “stakeholders” were entitled to receive the draft report regardless of any implicit or explicit criticism of the crew in the report..

After sight of the draft report, it’s up to the families themselves to determine if anything in the report amounts to what they consider criticism of their loved ones. It doesn't necessarily follow that the families receiving a copy means that the report criticises the crew in any way.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,801
The families as “stakeholders” were entitled to receive the draft report regardless of any implicit or explicit criticism of the crew in the report..

After sight of the draft report, it’s up to the families themselves to determine if anything in the report amounts to what they consider criticism of their loved ones. It doesn't necessarily follow that the families receiving a copy means that the report criticises the crew in any way.
I think it’s CHC rather than the families that called for a review.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
The families as “stakeholders” were entitled to receive the draft report regardless of any implicit or explicit criticism of the crew in the report..

After sight of the draft report, it’s up to the families themselves to determine if anything in the report amounts to what they consider criticism of their loved ones. It doesn't necessarily follow that the families receiving a copy means that the report criticises the crew in any way.
It could be the practice to give families sight of the draft report, but they are not entitled to it, unless there is some form of criticism contained in it. The reason for that is basic fair procedures to allow people to challenge criticism before a final report is published.
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,973
It could be the practice to give families sight of the draft report, but they are not entitled to it, unless there is some form of criticism contained in it. The reason for that is basic fair procedures to allow people to challenge criticism before a final report is published.
But their remit is to circulate the report to “stakeholders” .. which effectively means anyone related or mentioned in it..
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
But their remit is to circulate the report to “stakeholders” .. which effectively means anyone related or mentioned in it..
The whole process is defined in law in the SI linked below, which doesn't say anything about "stakeholders". It does say that the report has to be served on anyone whose reputation might be impugned by it, or their descendants in the case of someone deceased. I guess it's at the discretion of the Chief Inspector then who else gets it, but since it is supposed to be a confidential report, nobody else has a right to see it.

 

buttercookie

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
972
Im lost here.

Is this supposed to be an independent report to find out all the facts.

If so what is the issue about liability, if someone is found liable how does challenging the report affect its findings, are the people who did the independent investigation going to stand over the findings no matter whose reputation is affected?

Surely none of the stakeholders have more information about what happened than the experts who investigated.

Is it not better to release the report now and if there are grounds to challenge it then let these challenges be in the public domain.

Also why arent the stakeholders who have an issue with the findings being identified.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
The party that is likely to have challenged the report is CHC - the company which runs the Search and Rescue service on behalf of the coast guard. The report might have found fault with any aspect of their work: their training, equipment, operating procedures etc. They would have contributed in a major way to the investigation, but maybe they disagree with the conclusions.
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,973
Last edited:
Last edited:
The whole process is defined in law in the SI linked below, which doesn't say anything about "stakeholders". It does say that the report has to be served on anyone whose reputation might be impugned by it, or their descendants in the case of someone deceased. I guess it's at the discretion of the Chief Inspector then who else gets it, but since it is supposed to be a confidential report, nobody else has a right to see it.

Thanks for posting that link. Yes you’re correct, it doesn’t mention “stakeholders” however it does specify those persons and entities who the draft report should be served upon and they could be collectively considered as stakeholders or “interested parties” (a term used earlier to describe them in the media).

Coincidentally the R116 accident was discussed on the Pat Kenny show (@ 01:04:45) this morning and later on in the show the term “stakeholders” was used in a statement from the AAIU (@ 02:47:15) as follows:

“The AAIU has asked all stakeholders including the media not to comment on it’s investigation report until it’s fully complete and published”


(Newstalk doesn’t appear to provide a direct URL \ link to the show.. so select Pat Kenny Show on 16th January 2020 on above link)
 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,278
Im lost here.

Is this supposed to be an independent report to find out all the facts.

If so what is the issue about liability, if someone is found liable how does challenging the report affect its findings, are the people who did the independent investigation going to stand over the findings no matter whose reputation is affected?

Surely none of the stakeholders have more information about what happened than the experts who investigated.

Is it not better to release the report now and if there are grounds to challenge it then let these challenges be in the public domain.

Also why arent the stakeholders who have an issue with the findings being identified.

100 % mate.... if it was a man pilot it would of been over months ago....
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom