http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4449882.stmNote that the Ministry of Defence still denies liability even though it has agreed to pay

As far as I've seen, everyone has an atitude of denial in civil cases. Actually, the only ones that I recall taking responsibility for crashes are the Japanese, like the management of JAL. But then, I understand that they can't be sued in Japan.

It's a common attitude everywhere.Better to pay a bit now than face the bad press and high cost of a protracted lawsuit with an uncertain outcome.Of course the practice itself makes for an ever increasing number of frivolous claims because even the threat of going to court over something is now often enough to get an offer for a hefty settlement.

It would really take much more information than this skimpy press release to judge who was at fault and what really had happened.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

I think we can learn something from the fact that the the MoD agreed to pay

yup, threaten to take them to court over something and you get free money...

>I think we can learn something Not much. Companies do it often to avoid costly litigation.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

They must be very generous where you live -

Some facts from the AAIB bulletin on the accident:The tower cleared the Cessna G-WHDP to land. After landing the pilot became aware of a Sea King helicopter. He tried to avoid it, perhaps mistakenly by going around instead of braking, and crashed.The conclusion includes - my emphasis:"The Sea King crew were not aware of the landing Cessna or the tower/Cessna RT exhanges as they had been fully occupied in their pre-taxi discussions. They would have been advised of the landing traffic had they called for departure but their intention was to ground taxi and lift into the air and then call for departure. As the hold instruction was given in order to let the bowser through, no mention of the Cessna was required to be given by the tower controller. There was a misinterpretation, by the Sea King crew, that the instruction to hold was a suggestion rather than an instruction. The offer to proceed was made by the helicopter plot to try to assist the controller by quickly clearing a route for the tanker to proceed. This offer seems to have been accepted when the controller transmitted the surface wind to the pilot. The controller however mistakenly believed that the Sea King crew were visual with the Cessna."Other points mentioned earlier in the bulletin were:"The crew had been having trouble with the helicopter's radios. Interference in the form of a loud background hum occured when a transmission was made from their helicopter. This was, however, merely an irritation and by reducing the volume, the crew were able to minimise the hum but still have adequate reception."This is not consistent with a later statement:"Futhermore, the crew had lowered the volume of their radio boxes to overcome the background noise problem. They were still able to hear transmissions although at times with difficulty."Although the Cessna pilot may have made a wrong decision when faced with a helicopter after landing, the prime responsibility must be with the MoD(RAF) who let a helicopter get into a position where the Cessna pilot felt to take avoiding action.

Would have been $600 million in the US most likely (of which of course $500 would have gone to the lawyers).