From a quick google, rain at the circuit wasn't the issue for the helicopter, it was the conditions at the hospital which were too inclement for the helicopter to land there. Wind maybe being a larger factor? The lap Sutil went off, Bianchi was right behind and you can see that he has to correct as the car runs over a stream across the track. It was the same stream that took him off the lap after, and from memory he was still doing something like 130mph when he came off. That's not the "slow and be prepared to stop" required under double yellows in the dry, never mind the wet. The argument against Marussia could be that the family feel they were applying pressure (directly or indirectly) to Bianchi to push harder than he should under the double yellows. Another angle from a bit of reading suggests Bianchi was on worn intermediate tyres, not the full wets most of the field were on, so that strategy call could be in question.
It was a terrible event and one that should never happen in any sport to any family - but unfortunately things do and will happen. I cant understand how the team can be responsible, tyre selection, pace and strategy are speculative and objective. Even if they are deemed to have not informed Jules sufficiently on the potential dangers of that part of the track, or the double waved yellows and work being carried out - it is ultimately the driver's responsibility to be in control of their own actions and respond accordingly to track conditions - this includes weather and Marshall flags/instructions. In relation to the conduct and actions of Race control on the day - this may be more open to debate. I'm not sure what the agreement or stipulation is on medical safety and whether the drivers/teams wave their right to safety whilst racing under any other agreement? However, if the Helicopter being present and able to fly is a perquisite of the race going ahead (which I think it is?) then this may be the debate point - for all parties concerned? I suppose the question would then progress to whether the Helicopter could have flown, but just not through the storm between the track and its destination, or if flying would have had a medical impact on Jules? I still think regardless of waved yellows (and with hindsight), the crane was a dangerous addition to an already dangerous situation - but I'm not sure whether that's a liable argument or a debate on reducing risks in the future?
With regards to the helicopter, is there argument that if it couldn't fly the race should not have gone ahead, therefore the accident would not have happened, or is it the helicopter not being able to fly was in some way part of the reason why Bianchi died because he could not be transported to hospital in a reasonable amount of time, not withstanding the medical facilities provided by the FIA at the circuit?
I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that will be the legal debate. If it could not fly because of the weather at the circuit then I would imagine that will be a litigation nightmare, however I seem to recall that the weather was worse on the flight path to the hospital and if so the circuit/F1 would argue that they had complied because the Helicopter could fly and leave the circuit, but just couldn't make its destination safely or in a timeframe that would have made a difference.
From the looks of Gary Hartstein's blog, there is a medical delegate in race control whose job it is to make sure the helicopter can take off and land at all times. It couldn't, so he should have made the case for the race to be stopped but didn't. The FIA rules also contain a 20 min max transfer time to hospital. If the helicopter can't fly but this time is achievable by ambulance the session could be continued. It took Jules 40 minutes by ambulance, and I don't believe that included a long time stuck in traffic - in any rate that's meant to be accounted for by the medical delegate. Basically, as soon as the helicopter couldn't land the medical delegate should have requested the race be stopped. I don't believe that happened. Hartstein seems to believe pretty much his sole job during the race is to monitor that situation. Additionally, the race was 75% complete when Sutil crashed, so they could have red flagged the race and not had to worry about half points or restarting the race in fading light.
My view is this 1. japan race is schedule in monsoon season 2. japan used vehicles that were pretty poor for recovery and dangerous 3. the panel basically went out of its way to blame bianchi for going to fast. I cannot see this suit working but i can see clear issues where that type of recovery vehicle should have been consigned to the bin years ago... however we could have equally been talking about bianchi smashing through marshalls so I do feel more learning could have been taken than were. for me its quite clear that if you cannot set up safe recovery zones then you should not host races. the sand was not stopping cars, there was rivers running across track and frankly... well... you can only do so much to make it 100% safe for marshalls never mind drivers but my view is anyone going into that areas to help the first driver or to recover the car were in harms way... what do you do about that?
The Bianchi family should receive some kind of compensation if they already haven't. Jules may have been speeding under yellows, but having a JCB essentially on track whilst cars are going round at a considerable speed in poorly lit and wet conditions... just stupid. The FIA/FOM rake in vasts amounts of money every season but still end up hiring numbskull's and making laughable decisions. Was there any haste or need to collect Sutils car so eagerly? Bianchi would have just ended up hitting that, but the chassis would have absorbed the impact as it is meant to, considerably different to a multiple tonne JCB.
Hartstein has some thoughts on the matter:https://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/an-open-letter-to-the-bianchis/ He's got a point about the transfer time being the best way to get compensated and to drive change. Google maps reckons it's 16km/29 mins from the circuit gates to the hospital, so a sub-20 min trip looks impossible by ambulance.
The biggest problem for me was the speeding as a factor that could have been avoided. This has been addressed with the virtual safety car now though too late. The JCB was just doing its job recovering a car. Though they had difficulty doing it which meant it was there longer than it should be. A safety car should have been considered. The martial towers were showing confusing flags. Though there are lights on the circuit and the car. Plus the drivers were told. So who was to blame for Bianchi going to fast? The driver? The team? FIA/FOM? The Martials? The Circuit?
I'm very pleased the Bianchis have decided to pursue this. Certain operations within F1 are now as out-dated as the bloke that runs it (and also ensures that others such as the ghost-like figurehead of the FIA don't argue). They are collectively incompetent inasmuch as they perceive 'the show' as all-important, and that it must go on at all cost – even if that means overlooking its own safety guidelines. This kind of thinking is dangerous in the extreme and must be brought to account. Indeed, it might ultimately be judged as corporate manslaughter by one or more of various parties. F1 has had it coming. I wish the Bianchis the very best of luck. Having said that, of course I acknowledge that motor-racing is necessarily dangerous and that drivers MUST adhere responsibly to prescribed safety standards and whatever method by which these are to be implemented. The previous findings that Bianchi himself did not take appropriate action in lieu of the circumstance may or may not be valid. However, this does not immunise other parties who may also have been responsible. A driver's assessment of risk necessarily takes account of the measures which he or she knows are prescribed. This does not mean they can do what they like but it does mean that they can have an expectation of a broader perspective and that they can expect certain safety criteria to be met in the event of their own error, according to rules of procedure described and committed to by the organiser. In days of old, such undertakings by event organisers were negligible or non-existent. The point is though, that back then, participants knew this. Now though – when organisers are understood to have / are expected to / are required to make such undertakings – they become responsible parties by virtue of commitment. This makes it a legally binding agreement between organiser and participant, and thus the responsibilities of all parties are properly defined and understood. The events of Suzuka 2015 are well documented and I made my feelings known at the time. It was a tragedy from every aspect. But in my opinion, as I attempted to say at the time (maybe even here in this forum), the severity of outcome was avoidable. In my opinion, it occurred – at least in part – due to the actions being taken to recover Sutil's stricken car in addition to the compromised helicopter recovery. I said so at the time and was saying it for at least a minute before Bianchi went off, telling friends and associates that a Safety Car was required immediately. Yet this was not done. They attempted to recover Sutil's car under waved yellows in appalling conditions where visibility may have been extremely compromised, quite apart from the fact that Suzuka's run-offs are of the old-fashioned variety and that this part of the circuit is the most dangerous, especially in the wet. And if I was saying it, surely at least someone who could have done something at the time, should also have been at least thinking it!! … Bianchi may or may not have been driving without due regard for the actual situation at the time. But in itself, THIS DOES NOT RENDER OTHERS INCULPABLE !!
