1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

There are 3 bullets points in that article that are aimed directly at Leonardo so they cannot be regarded as not culpable IMO.

 

Regarding your point above, components such the coupling that failed can rarely be checked by eyeball inspection only. They would have to be removed and given an 'in depth' inspection. Operators follow maintenance guides lines as laid down by the manufactures. If there was no call for such an inspection, then failure or potential failure would go undetected. Once again, fingers point at Leonardo.

But the AAIB made "NO" recomendations. No "the design was flawed", no "redesign and and replace all parts". No "increase in maintenance schedules". How come if, according to the legal submission, the design was so flawed there have been no other such incidents and the AAIB did not order a redesign?

3 minutes ago, Samh said:

But the AAIB made "NO" recomendations. No "the design was flawed", no "redesign and and replace all parts". No "increase in maintenance schedules". How come if, according to the legal submission, the design was so flawed there have been no other such incidents and the AAIB did not order a redesign?

 

I don't know what the politics and protocols are regarding AAIB's recommendations especially when it comes to a foreign manufacturer, But one thing I do know is that:  ''there should be no implication of ‘blame and liability’ toward those to whom Safety Recommendations are addressed''.

 

So I guess they have to play a bit of a political balancing act.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-is-a-safety-recommendation/what-is-a-safety-recommendation

On 1/11/2025 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Swift said:

Look up how punitive damages are assessed based on the net worth of the defendant. Punitive means the punishment has to be severe enough to hurt and to deter further such actions.

Not in UK court.

7 hours ago, Samh said:

But the AAIB made "NO" recomendations. No "the design was flawed", no "redesign and and replace all parts". No "increase in maintenance schedules". How come if, according to the legal submission, the design was so flawed there have been no other such incidents and the AAIB did not order a redesign?

I was a Licenced Engineer on a helicopter (AW189) with the same tail rotor control as the AW169.

The reason there was no further accidents, is that after the accident, the engineers were required to carry out detailed inspections every 10 flying hours & to dismantle parts of the tail rotor control to do further detailed checks every 30 flying hours.

The root cause of the failure in the accident was a seized bearing.

During our inspections we sometimes found problems in those bearings & replaced them.

Disclaimer: I have been out of the helicopter buisness for 4 years now & I haven't kept up with developments since then.

1 hour ago, Pond Life said:

I was a Licenced Engineer on a helicopter (AW189) with the same tail rotor control as the AW169.

The reason there was no further accidents, is that after the accident, the engineers were required to carry out detailed inspections every 10 flying hours & to dismantle parts of the tail rotor control to do further detailed checks every 30 flying hours.

The root cause of the failure in the accident was a seized bearing.

During our inspections we sometimes found problems in those bearings & replaced them.

Disclaimer: I have been out of the helicopter buisness for 4 years now & I haven't kept up with developments since then.

Fantastic insight, thank you.

Sounds like there maybe some element of culpability with the seized tail rotor, however with the neutral AAIB investigation concluding the helicopter met all regulatory requirements this would probably be argued down to a maintenance issue which would not directly be the responsibility of the manufacturer.  Certainly that amount I am guessing would be an impossibility to argue.
If a Boeing jet goes down because of a mistake during maintenance it is the operators responsibility not the firms.

On 1/11/2025 at 11:28 AM, maddox41 said:

Good old Thai hisos going  for as much as  they can problem is they are dreaming no way they get anywhere near that typical l Thai greed at it  best hence why the country is in free fail 

In Thailand ordinary people would probably be awarded 80,000 baht which would never be paid. In England they are ordinary people too.

20 hours ago, PomPolo said:

Sounds like there maybe some element of culpability with the seized tail rotor, however with the neutral AAIB investigation concluding the helicopter met all regulatory requirements this would probably be argued down to a maintenance issue which would not directly be the responsibility of the manufacturer.  Certainly that amount I am guessing would be an impossibility to argue.
If a Boeing jet goes down because of a mistake during maintenance it is the operators responsibility not the firms.

It was not a mistake during maintenance, it was a bearing that failed, last I heard (4 yrs ago) they had not determined why it failed,  but others were found during subsequent inspections that were in the process of failing.

20 hours ago, PomPolo said:

Sounds like there maybe some element of culpability with the seized tail rotor, however with the neutral AAIB investigation concluding the helicopter met all regulatory requirements this would probably be argued down to a maintenance issue which would not directly be the responsibility of the manufacturer.  Certainly that amount I am guessing would be an impossibility to argue.
If a Boeing jet goes down because of a mistake during maintenance it is the operators responsibility not the firms.

 

3 minutes ago, Pond Life said:

It was not a mistake during maintenance, it was a bearing that failed, last I heard (4 yrs ago) they had not determined why it failed,  but others were found during subsequent inspections that were in the process of failing.

Ah, I haven't really been keeping up with the story to TBH, if so then some possible culpability if the inspection of the said bearings have not been included in maintenance procedures by the company.

Just found the below on the web seems to mention design phase so sounds like Leonardo might not be squeaky if there is a design issue!

"The report highlighted safety system flaws in the helicopter and the actions of Leonardo S.p.A., the Italian manufacturer of the aircraft.

The AAIB report concluded that the crash resulted from the failure of dual bearings and the tail rotor control system, both critical components identified by Leonardo during the design phase as essential for safe operation. Their failure caused the helicopter to lose control, spin violently, and crash, igniting a fire."

 

Seems alot if they was fault with the helicopter they maybe have a case.Maybe down to maintenace who knows and how old was it.The courts will decide this one,but the price is like pie in the sky figures to me

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crm7n7d37nko

 

Not sure why the inquest is only being held now but interesting that the deaths of the four passengers was from smoke inhalation and not injuries from the crash.