Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I confess to having some sympathy with perplexity's stance on this. Fast jets and lots of smoke, twitchy slam-bang 'ultimate' aerobatics with lots of smoke and my attention span is milliseconds. Probably great if you're flying it but watching? Not so much.
The most enchanting display I ever saw was the Skyhawks, remember them? That and once seeing Neil Williams performing an impromptu rolling circle in the Arrow Active at a PFA Rally at Sywell.
The most enchanting display I ever saw was the Skyhawks, remember them? That and once seeing Neil Williams performing an impromptu rolling circle in the Arrow Active at a PFA Rally at Sywell.
To be fair to Planemike as I recall it Hawker Siddeley ( Aaaah 
) did specifically design the Hawk to be a trainer with combat capability to improve it's chances in the export market.
) did specifically design the Hawk to be a trainer with combat capability to improve it's chances in the export market.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Con pilot, not so far fetched as you may think.
In WWII, in Italy, a Piper Supercub was credited with bringing down a Messerschmidt, witnessed by the troops on the ground. It was hotly pursued by the fighter, which was outmaneuvered in mountains and ended up on the rocks. A swastika was duly painted on the side of the PA18!
In WWII, in Italy, a Piper Supercub was credited with bringing down a Messerschmidt, witnessed by the troops on the ground. It was hotly pursued by the fighter, which was outmaneuvered in mountains and ended up on the rocks. A swastika was duly painted on the side of the PA18!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected. The L4 it was, called the Grasshopper, and there were a lot of them buzzing around directing artillery fire, transporting officers here and there, and even taking off from their own special aircraft carrier! worth reading about!
My own PA18 was built in Lockhaven Pennsylvania in 1977, so a late model.
My own PA18 was built in Lockhaven Pennsylvania in 1977, so a late model.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,599
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Bazooka-equipped L-4.
Perplexity's posts seem to have been deleted, curious as to how/why he linked the Shoreham tragedy with HSA\BAe equipping Hawks with hardpoints...
Perplexity's posts seem to have been deleted, curious as to how/why he linked the Shoreham tragedy with HSA\BAe equipping Hawks with hardpoints...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestions concerning a possible criminal investigation have been made here however I understand that Andy Hill has still not been formerly interviewed by the Police. I fully appreciate that this is an exceptional accident and that the AAIB are diligently working toward a conclusion but it seems surprising that by mid-November there is still no apparent Police intervention. Is this usual?
Yes, it's usual.
The police only normally get involved when there is evidence of a criminal act.
Whilst the AAIB *may* conclude that there has been misjudgement or negligence, it is near certain that nobody intended this accident to happen or believed that it was likely. If the police have taken that view and to leave this to be treated as an accident for lessons to be learned then I, for one, would applaud that decision.
G
The police only normally get involved when there is evidence of a criminal act.
Whilst the AAIB *may* conclude that there has been misjudgement or negligence, it is near certain that nobody intended this accident to happen or believed that it was likely. If the police have taken that view and to leave this to be treated as an accident for lessons to be learned then I, for one, would applaud that decision.
G
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Con pilot, don't forget the Bolkow Juniors that had rocket pods attached to the wing struts in Biafra (?) and the AOP9s (Austers)that some enterprising Brown Job fitted bren guns to in Malaysia.
Back to the thread....
Back to the thread....
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTE, I do agree, not least because it is the accident investigator's duty under the Chicago Convention NOT to apportion blame.
On the other hand, whether the Authority failed to carry out a proper risk assessment before authorising an airshow with low vintage jet aerobatics over a major road with standing traffic will be a matter for civil claimants to establish on the balance of probability.
With so many people dead, I don't think the CAA can just shrug it off and promise to be more careful in future. There is clear precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeystead_disaster, for instance) for substantial damages to be paid even when an assessable risk is only identified with hindsight.
On the other hand, whether the Authority failed to carry out a proper risk assessment before authorising an airshow with low vintage jet aerobatics over a major road with standing traffic will be a matter for civil claimants to establish on the balance of probability.
With so many people dead, I don't think the CAA can just shrug it off and promise to be more careful in future. There is clear precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeystead_disaster, for instance) for substantial damages to be paid even when an assessable risk is only identified with hindsight.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, whether the Authority failed to carry out a proper risk assessment before authorising an airshow
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wallingford
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes indeed Genghis, good learnings will emerge from the report for sure, which hopefully will result in modifications to current procedures rather than draconian restrictions.
Perhaps a recommendation to tighten up what the Air Show Director can authorise would be good. Currently the director must advise the pilot of his minimum permitted display height in writing (and by phone or in person nearer the time). Maybe a good idea for the director to physically see the whole display to assess its safety before authorising it?
Perhaps a recommendation to tighten up what the Air Show Director can authorise would be good. Currently the director must advise the pilot of his minimum permitted display height in writing (and by phone or in person nearer the time). Maybe a good idea for the director to physically see the whole display to assess its safety before authorising it?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a good idea for the director to physically see the whole display to assess its safety before authorising it?
Somewhere, I recall discussion about a hard floor at 500 feet for that show. Though appropriate to a much smaller aerobatic aircraft, I imagine (not being a jet pilot) that is a demanding target for a high inertia jet.
On the whole, I would hope that airshow organizers balance safety with the need (or not) to see aerobatics performed by vintage or high inertia aircraft. We're lucky to have these vintage aircraft flightworthy and displayable at all, do we need to wrap them around on top of that? My vote is just to fly them by a few times.....
Actually I think recent accident investigations have been handled terribly. That is not just confined to the Shoreham accident but recent helicopter accidents in the North Sea, Glasgow and even London.
Its easy to think of accident investigation purely as an engineering process to be gone through uncluttered by outside influence. Yet why does good communication prejudice any of that? Why are human factors in the UK poorly investigated (in fact the Glasgow helicopter accident report hardly looked at all into them despite multiple alarms being cancelled for example)?
Why does any outcome or feedback into improving safety fall into an abyss without timeframe, ownership, accountability, worse no record or detail into the thinking and decision making around any safety recommendations? CAA, who was part of the decision making, when did it get considered, where are the minutes of that meeting, etc, etc.
Its not about blame, its about rigor and professionalism. Its so when things go wrong (as they can do) we don't need a "review" that reviews the thing that was reviewed months before. Its so that we show a confidence in what we are about so that others (perhaps the public) may have a confidence to allow us to keeping do it. I think the lawyers might call it reputational damage.
Take any of that list and you'll find the current structure lacking but communication is especially pitiful.
Vauxhall helicopter crash victim's sister tells of her three year struggle for answers as inquest into tragedy begins | London | News | London Evening Standard
Sturgeon: How much longer must the Clutha families wait for answers? - Daily Record
North Sea oil worker helicopter crash victim's inquest reviewed (From The Northern Echo)
...so it goes on and why? On a emotive level its just poor form that victims of this are being forced to relive these events and have it lingering on for so long. For the wider aviation community if safety is paramount then again delay is unacceptable.
Back to Shoreham.
This has a huge set of potential consequences for all kinds of people, not least of all insurance. We all need it, but one thing not really explored here is just what level might be considered adequate in future? After all what is the cost going to be here and what cover available to call upon? What contracts existed between the pilot and the aircraft owners? None of that need figure in an AAIB report but my goodness it could be an important element to consider for all pilots.
Yet to cut to the chase its been 3 months since the accident. We have a pilot, we have video footage, we have the various 3rd parties that were involved in the effort (the aircraft owner, its maintenance records and people, the pilots DAE, the display organiser, the director) and we are told that the AAIB will report late in 2016. Really? Why is that? Is it just because they are too busy elsewhere? Is it because they share one typist? Is it because there is a specific element of investigation that is taking some time?
It is impossible that in the 3 months since the accident absolute clarity can not be given regarding where the investigation is and what elements are being focused upon. Whilst that may be a departure from the ivory tower of saying nothing it would be a refreshing improvement.
It would be very cruel if this followed that lead set with the Glasgow helicopter crash where radio silence prevailed until the very last only for nothing really new to emerge - which could have been communicated a year before.
I personally doubt anything will emerge in the Shoreham investigation that will distract the focus away from the piloting and so perhaps cynically at least the CAA can have their review published in good time and so be ready to tick most of any AAIB safety recommendation boxes.
Its easy to think of accident investigation purely as an engineering process to be gone through uncluttered by outside influence. Yet why does good communication prejudice any of that? Why are human factors in the UK poorly investigated (in fact the Glasgow helicopter accident report hardly looked at all into them despite multiple alarms being cancelled for example)?
Why does any outcome or feedback into improving safety fall into an abyss without timeframe, ownership, accountability, worse no record or detail into the thinking and decision making around any safety recommendations? CAA, who was part of the decision making, when did it get considered, where are the minutes of that meeting, etc, etc.
Its not about blame, its about rigor and professionalism. Its so when things go wrong (as they can do) we don't need a "review" that reviews the thing that was reviewed months before. Its so that we show a confidence in what we are about so that others (perhaps the public) may have a confidence to allow us to keeping do it. I think the lawyers might call it reputational damage.
Take any of that list and you'll find the current structure lacking but communication is especially pitiful.
Vauxhall helicopter crash victim's sister tells of her three year struggle for answers as inquest into tragedy begins | London | News | London Evening Standard
Sturgeon: How much longer must the Clutha families wait for answers? - Daily Record
North Sea oil worker helicopter crash victim's inquest reviewed (From The Northern Echo)
...so it goes on and why? On a emotive level its just poor form that victims of this are being forced to relive these events and have it lingering on for so long. For the wider aviation community if safety is paramount then again delay is unacceptable.
Back to Shoreham.
This has a huge set of potential consequences for all kinds of people, not least of all insurance. We all need it, but one thing not really explored here is just what level might be considered adequate in future? After all what is the cost going to be here and what cover available to call upon? What contracts existed between the pilot and the aircraft owners? None of that need figure in an AAIB report but my goodness it could be an important element to consider for all pilots.
Yet to cut to the chase its been 3 months since the accident. We have a pilot, we have video footage, we have the various 3rd parties that were involved in the effort (the aircraft owner, its maintenance records and people, the pilots DAE, the display organiser, the director) and we are told that the AAIB will report late in 2016. Really? Why is that? Is it just because they are too busy elsewhere? Is it because they share one typist? Is it because there is a specific element of investigation that is taking some time?
It is impossible that in the 3 months since the accident absolute clarity can not be given regarding where the investigation is and what elements are being focused upon. Whilst that may be a departure from the ivory tower of saying nothing it would be a refreshing improvement.
It would be very cruel if this followed that lead set with the Glasgow helicopter crash where radio silence prevailed until the very last only for nothing really new to emerge - which could have been communicated a year before.
I personally doubt anything will emerge in the Shoreham investigation that will distract the focus away from the piloting and so perhaps cynically at least the CAA can have their review published in good time and so be ready to tick most of any AAIB safety recommendation boxes.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where there is blame there is a claim !
The answer to your question as to why it takes so long is that as soon as the report is published every anblulance chasing lawyer with even half an interest in the case will be looking to use the report to get money and/ or making a name for themselfs by exposing a "cover up or whitewash" by the authorities.
This results in the AAIB being very reluctant to publish anything definitive until they are 100% sure they have the all the facts in place.
The pain for those bereaved by this tragic accident is prolonged by the modern requirement for so called closure and the insistence by the media that they have to know all the facts before this can happen.
As for the Glasgow helicopter crash and the comments by that woman from the SNP, she as a lawyer should know how long it takes to compile a reliable report and her comments are just political grandstanding at the expense of the pain and suffering of those directly involved.
The unfortunate fact is that no amount of reports will bring back the dead and pursuit of the truth as the lawyers and media see it is not helping those who have lost loved ones move on with their lives and a rushed half baked report will just make matters worse.
This results in the AAIB being very reluctant to publish anything definitive until they are 100% sure they have the all the facts in place.
The pain for those bereaved by this tragic accident is prolonged by the modern requirement for so called closure and the insistence by the media that they have to know all the facts before this can happen.
As for the Glasgow helicopter crash and the comments by that woman from the SNP, she as a lawyer should know how long it takes to compile a reliable report and her comments are just political grandstanding at the expense of the pain and suffering of those directly involved.
The unfortunate fact is that no amount of reports will bring back the dead and pursuit of the truth as the lawyers and media see it is not helping those who have lost loved ones move on with their lives and a rushed half baked report will just make matters worse.
I'm surprised by your comments A&C.
For example why would any lawyer (ambulance chasing or not) that could expose a cover up by authority be seen as negative?? That is a good thing isn't it and completely regardless of any association to aviation matters.
Your paragraphs 2 & 3 - so what other facts can the AAIB gather 3 months on? They have whats left of the aircraft, they have a live pilot that crashed it and access to all the 3rd parties that were involved in the events and given its 2015 there is much film, including on board. What more "facts" can emerge?
Now no doubt the analysis piece could take some time but 3 months is already quite significant and if there are elements of particular detailed work that require special analysis why not say?
These accident investigations simply take far far too long to conclude and its got nothing to do with the media or things being half baked. The GermanWings A320 crash in the Alps. The outline of what happened took a matter of days to be highlighted. Was that half baked?
I'm sure there will be a many hundred page final document that goes into much more detailed analysis but the outline summary is always going to be CFIT.
Glasgow helicopter, fuel mismanagement and failed auto-rotation. London helicopter grubbing around in bad wx, Norfolk heli grubbing around in bad wx. Now granted the final report puts meat on those bare bones but the bare bones are still there.
Same with Shoreham. You should want to know because as in every accident either the machine failed or the man failed and if the machine failed then what part of the process fell over were we thought something was safe and it suddenly isn't safe. That is an obvious desire. If the man failed - for get ambulance chasing or getting legal - you should want to know because you as an aviator want to be able to continue flying with your same freedoms because the airmanship you hold is held by others.
OR as is very often the case things were flagged in the past and then nothing got done, only for it to come back and bite us later and that requires serious attention because maybe then we have the wrong people doing this type of work.
Go and read some elements of the G-LBAL report. Fast forward to page 56 of that report and then see how some people are living, worse allowed to live. Then if you really need things spelling out in the AAIB's own words:-
I'd say the sooner that type of issue gets flagged the better off everyone is.
For example why would any lawyer (ambulance chasing or not) that could expose a cover up by authority be seen as negative?? That is a good thing isn't it and completely regardless of any association to aviation matters.
Your paragraphs 2 & 3 - so what other facts can the AAIB gather 3 months on? They have whats left of the aircraft, they have a live pilot that crashed it and access to all the 3rd parties that were involved in the events and given its 2015 there is much film, including on board. What more "facts" can emerge?
Now no doubt the analysis piece could take some time but 3 months is already quite significant and if there are elements of particular detailed work that require special analysis why not say?
These accident investigations simply take far far too long to conclude and its got nothing to do with the media or things being half baked. The GermanWings A320 crash in the Alps. The outline of what happened took a matter of days to be highlighted. Was that half baked?
I'm sure there will be a many hundred page final document that goes into much more detailed analysis but the outline summary is always going to be CFIT.
Glasgow helicopter, fuel mismanagement and failed auto-rotation. London helicopter grubbing around in bad wx, Norfolk heli grubbing around in bad wx. Now granted the final report puts meat on those bare bones but the bare bones are still there.
Same with Shoreham. You should want to know because as in every accident either the machine failed or the man failed and if the machine failed then what part of the process fell over were we thought something was safe and it suddenly isn't safe. That is an obvious desire. If the man failed - for get ambulance chasing or getting legal - you should want to know because you as an aviator want to be able to continue flying with your same freedoms because the airmanship you hold is held by others.
OR as is very often the case things were flagged in the past and then nothing got done, only for it to come back and bite us later and that requires serious attention because maybe then we have the wrong people doing this type of work.
Go and read some elements of the G-LBAL report. Fast forward to page 56 of that report and then see how some people are living, worse allowed to live. Then if you really need things spelling out in the AAIB's own words:-
Opportunities to reduce the likelihood of such an event, presented by the report into the
operator’s previous fatal accident, appeared not to have been taken.
operator’s previous fatal accident, appeared not to have been taken.