Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2016

Cameron Forster

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2016-0436, written 8 Dec 2016. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report8 Dec 2016
Reference2016-0436
DeceasedCameron Forster
CoronerMichael Oakley
Coroner areaNorth Yorkshire (East)
CategoryOther related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses publishednone published

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS  

. 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

The Department of Transport, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 
4DR  

1 

CORONER 

I am Michel Dudley Oakley Senior Coroner for the area of North Yorkshire East 

2 

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 
and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On  the  4th  May  2016  I  commenced  an  investigation  in  to  the  deaths  of  Ajvir  Singh 
Sandhu  aged  25  and  Cameron  James  Forster  aged  21.    The  investigation  was 
concluded  at  the  end  of  the  Inquest  on  the  5  December  2016.    The  conclusion  of  the 
inquest in the case of both persons was accidental. 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Both the deceased persons were Flying Officers training with the Royal Air Force at RAF 
Linton Upon Ouse.  On the 30 April 2016 whilst off duty the first deceased Mr Sandhu 
hired  a  Slingsby  T67  Firefly  aeroplane  from  Full  Sutton  Flying  Centre  at  York.    Mr 
Sandhu had previously hired the same plane back in January. 

Both  Mr  Sandhu  and  Mr  Forster  then  flew  out  of  Full  Sutton  Flying  Centre  and  whilst 
performing aerobatics and getting the aircraft into a spin above Castle Howard near to 
Whitwell Hill Malton the light aircraft which they were flying crashed into a field and both 
occupants were killed.    

5 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In 
my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the 
circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows.  –  

1. The two lead investigators from the AAIB stated that neither occupant was wearing a 
parachute and that parachutes were  not supplied but had they done so  and abandoned 
the  aircraft  at  a    safe  height  that  would  have  offered  both  of  them  the  possibility  of 
survival.   The AAIB referred me to leaflet number 90 issued by the CAA relating to static 
line parachutes and I would advise that further consideration should be given to whether 
those  leaflets  should  be  revised  and/or  that  regulations  are  introduced  making 

1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mandatory the provision of parachutes with static lines for aircraft of this nature.  

2    That  there  should  be  a  review  taking  place  of  whether  regulations  should  be 
introduced  to  make  spin  recovery  training  mandatory  on  specific  types  of  light  aircraft 
before a person can fly that light aircraft and carry out aerobatics. 

3.  Evidence was  given  from  the  AAIB  that  whilst  it  was  clear  that  Mr  Sandhu had  had 
spin  recovery  training  within  the  Royal  Air  Force  that  spin  recovery  training  had  taken 
place on two different aircraft and not the Slingsby Firefly.  Concern has been expressed 
within  the  Inquest  that  in  an  aircraft  well  understood  to  have  areas  requiring  specific 
handling techniques it should be established that the persons who fly them are trained 
and  proficient  in  those  areas  and  have  the  ability  to  recover  the  aircraft  from  an 
uncontrolled condition.   

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that your 
department have the power to take such action.  

7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by  2nd February 2017 I, the coroner, may extend the period. 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out 
the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 

8 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I  have  sent  a  copy  of  my  report  to  the  Chief  Coroner  and  to  the  following  Interested 
Persons namely 

and to 

, 

of the AAIB 

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.  

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary 
form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful 
or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your 
response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 

9 

8th December 2016                                   Michael D Oakley 

2

Related reports

More reports categorised “Other related deaths”

See all →

Track Michael Oakley

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Michael Oakley, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.