Canberra WT328 - Crash At Shoreham May 1956

[Madbob]

Prompted by the success of the post by Deepestsouth about the crash of a Valient in 1959 I though I would make a similar search for info into the crash of a Canberra B(I)8 from B Sqn at Boscombe Down on the 7th May 1956.

I am the nephew of the pilot Sqn Ldr M R Alston who was killed along with his nav, Flt Lt V D Hall.

I have seen the BoI report which stated that the ac flew into the sea off Shoreham whilst carrying out a low level radar altimeter trial and that pilot error and unsuitable wx (poor horizon/mist patches) was the probable cause.

As my uncle died before I was born I would be interested in some of the more "human" sides to this story particuarly if anyone knew him or served elsewhere with him. He was in Burma during WW2 and flew Spitfires and later Mustangs.....

Many thanks. MB

[Observer1940]

Hello MB

You say you have seen the BoI (Board of Inquiry), but did you realise that the Accidents Investigation Branch (AIB) were also involved, although they were not formally requested by the RAF. The Canberra type was obviously under investigation by the A.I.B. in 1955/56, according to their Misc Reports Sheet shown to me by the Navigator's son of WT.328.

The RAF Court (Board) stated that aircraft was on a low level task. Also that the wing tip had touched the sea first and although I am not disagreeing with this, it was determined that Canberra WT328 (or "WT.328") had entered the sea at a steep dive angle.

A Distress signal trace was also received around the time of the crash, but more importantly the Canberra was found to be trimmed for level flight very slightly "(0.02 degrees) "nose up" ".

[Madbob]

Observer1940

Thank you for your post. Sadly, I have to accept that the cause was most likely pilot error and that the lack of a discernible horizon contributed to the error. Very much like what happened to an early Tornado GR1 loss over the Irish Sea.

There seems to be no evidence for there being a runaway tailplane trim actuator. As you say the ac seems to have been in a left bank and very shallow descent and simply cartwheeled in.

MB

[Observer1940]

One cannot be certain that the Pilot was to blame and note that "the pilot probably allowed the port wing to strike the sea" with the word "probably" being inserted. The Court is also suggesting that it happened "probably during a turn." However, there were no eyewitnesses.

1. Page 8A states regarding the Port engine ... "gives clear evidence that it was under power at the time of impact." The port wing tip was torn off (page 6A) with the aircraft striking the sea "at a fairly steep angle".

It was well established pre WW2 and in WW2 in The King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions of the Royal Air Force (K.R. & A.C.I. paragraph 1318) regarding the reputation of an Officer or Airmen that he should be able to attend a Court of Inquiry throughout, or from the time at which he is affected and cross examine any evidence which affects him adversely, which the crew were unable to do.

Mark

[Madbob]

To the memory of my uncle Michael and his navigator Victor Hall who were both killed in the crash of WT328 off Shoreham 59 years ago. Gone, but nt forgotten.


MB

[Tinribs]

Enquiries into military aircraft aircraft accidents have excited many in the past with emotion setting the tone of comments rather than facts or the law. A board is not a court of law and does not find crew guilty or to blame, it is tasked with discovering the most probable cause of an accident and stating what might be done to prevent repeats or reduce their consequence.

The Scottish helicopter crash well illustrates this point

After a board is complete senior officers will opine on the findings and add their own understanding, again criminal or civil law is not involved. The Kings regulations as described did not apply to this accident as they had long been replaced by the manual of air force law. MAFL

Military law had many flaws but the purpose was to establish and maintain an effective military force, fairness was important but secondary.In some ways it was fairer than criminal law for example a man charged with drunkeness could not face a charge, like a magistrate, for 24 hours on the other hand like my friend at Marham he could be court martialled and dismissed the service for failing to attend a dinner

[Wander00]

court martialled and dismissed the service for failing to attend a dinner

No names, but unusual circumstances perhaps.