AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would not be a continuation of the previous Shoreham event, a fundraiser for RAFA.
Ah; that I did not realise and it would be sad if RAFA lost any funds.
Ah; that I did not realise and it would be sad if RAFA lost any funds.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note other forums are asking if airshows should employ realtime data and the FDD can compare this to the pilots planned display. If something is awry he/she can call an immediate stop to the pilot with the necessary reporting afterwards.
Would this system have made any difference to the outcome of the Shoreham incident. At what point would the FDD have known it wasn't as per the pilots details on the planned display.
Would this system have made any difference to the outcome of the Shoreham incident. At what point would the FDD have known it wasn't as per the pilots details on the planned display.
Whilst recorded data may help post display analysis by a FDD, real time analysis and FDD intervention has many considerations regarding its viability. If a pilot approaches the start of a manoeuvre and is off parameters (speed, height or positioning) he will fly an alternative manoeuvre. If the cloudbase changes during a display, he will change from a full to a rolling or flat display. Those are aspects of display flying which are demonstrated by a competent, professional display pilot. There may be several options and a FDD cannot know which one a pilot has chosen. If a rigid fixed sequence is mandated it will put pressure on a pilot to enter a manoeuvre from marginal conditions because he is not allowed any options and this can actually compromise safety. As an example, if I am flying an aircraft where I use 350 KAS as a minimum entry speed to enter a loop and 300 KIAS to enter a 1/2 Cuban and I reach the planned entry point for a loop at 320 KIAS I may elect to fly a 1/2 Cuban followed by a positioning turn for the subsequent manoeuvre. How is a FDD to know that? Does he call a stop? Intervention may cause distraction, confusion (if the reason is not clear to the pilot) and can actually be detrimental to safety. I once watched a MiG-29 practise at Farnborough where the pilot was consistently infringing the crowd line. The FDD told the Kommisar who was supervising to tell the pilot to land which he did immediately - 2/3 down the runway and ran off the end! I have been the leader of a FCC when an item infringed a separation minima due to misjudgement. I was told to tell him to stop and clear by someone who often fulfilled my role but had no authority at that display. I refused to call stop because at that point of his display (a decelerating transition towards the crowd) he would then have had to clear over the crowd creating a greater safety hazard. The pilot corrected for the next manoeuvre and I was happy for him to continue, and the person who interjected subsequently apologised. Display flying and supervision is not black and white; it requires judgement based on experience and knowledge.
As an example, if I am flying an aircraft where I use 350 KAS as a minimum entry speed to enter a loop and 300 KIAS to enter a 1/2 Cuban and I reach the planned entry point for a loop at 320 KIAS I may elect to fly a 1/2 Cuban followed by a positioning turn for the subsequent manoeuvre.
DRUK
For an experienced and competent display pilot, no. He/she should have considered options to follow for missing a gate and have planned alternatives in order to continue the display. A display is an exhibition to spectators and a display pilot should be able to fill the planned 'exhibition' slot if he can do so safely. Most military displays do require a termination if a manoeuvre cannot be flown as planned, but with the exception of RAFAT, BBMF, RNHF etc most military display pilots only fly 1 or 2 seasons and so may not have developed the capacity to substitute alternative manoeuvres, and hence they also have a large training and currency requirement.
For some very light and slow aircraft, the display must be varied according to the wind and often that can only be judged fully once airborne.
For an experienced and competent display pilot, no. He/she should have considered options to follow for missing a gate and have planned alternatives in order to continue the display. A display is an exhibition to spectators and a display pilot should be able to fill the planned 'exhibition' slot if he can do so safely. Most military displays do require a termination if a manoeuvre cannot be flown as planned, but with the exception of RAFAT, BBMF, RNHF etc most military display pilots only fly 1 or 2 seasons and so may not have developed the capacity to substitute alternative manoeuvres, and hence they also have a large training and currency requirement.
For some very light and slow aircraft, the display must be varied according to the wind and often that can only be judged fully once airborne.
Having the FDD trying to talk to you during a display is not going to help in the slightest and would inevitably lead to some very significant confusion. It makes sense that the FDD has the power to 'red card' you during any display - he may have seen something significant that the display pilot hasn't seen, but I can't see him having enough realtime data to hand to make a sensible call about stopping you at critical gate points.
You'll never get able to guarantee a display pilot won't crash. Once in many many hundreds of displays an accident will occur which will involve members of the public. It's the same with commercial aviation. Have a read into the provisional report on the Turkish Cargo 747 crash. An experienced crew managed to let the FCS fly them down to DH almost 2nm beyond where they should have been. A GA actioned about 4 sec after passing their 100ft DH meant a crash was inevitable. Just staggering that a crew could screw-up in style killing themselves and 35 innocent others on the ground. Thankfully these tragedies are invariable infrequent, but you'll never stop them happening.
You'll never get able to guarantee a display pilot won't crash. Once in many many hundreds of displays an accident will occur which will involve members of the public. It's the same with commercial aviation. Have a read into the provisional report on the Turkish Cargo 747 crash. An experienced crew managed to let the FCS fly them down to DH almost 2nm beyond where they should have been. A GA actioned about 4 sec after passing their 100ft DH meant a crash was inevitable. Just staggering that a crew could screw-up in style killing themselves and 35 innocent others on the ground. Thankfully these tragedies are invariable infrequent, but you'll never stop them happening.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre inquest hearing set for June 20th.
Is this appropriate or not Shoreham Airshow crash witness makes documentary on overcoming trauma - Shoreham Herald
Is this appropriate or not Shoreham Airshow crash witness makes documentary on overcoming trauma - Shoreham Herald
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In its use as "proper, suitable and fitting", yes it is. Many a soldier trained and hardened for combat has suffered with PTSD. Is it not therefore reasonable to expect a civilian who has witnessed such a horror not to remain unaffected. Sights and sounds are one thing, but what about the smells. They remain forever. Ask any who are first at the scene of a horrific air disaster.
I may be wrong but suspect the issue that hebog/brakedwell are addressing is not whether a witness or witnesses have suffered from PTSD or not, I suspect the issue being raised is it appropriate for a documentary to be made when AFAAIK there has yet to be an inquest, yet to be a Coroners final report, and there is still the chance of criminal proceddings.
I suppose it depends on what the subject of the documentary is?
If it's about the accident - then I would certainly have concerns.
If it's about the individual's experience of PTSD and coping therewith then it should not be a conflict.
If it's about the accident - then I would certainly have concerns.
If it's about the individual's experience of PTSD and coping therewith then it should not be a conflict.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know why the “comprehensive” 452 page AAIB report fails to mention a flying display performed by the same pilot on 21 September, 2014, that was deemed unsafe?
“…the aircraft [Jet Provost] was observed to be inside the lateral separation minima for the event and also below the minimum height stipulated in the Article 162 Permission issued by the CAA.
A stop call was immediately issued by the Flying Display Director (FDD) on the display radio frequency and the flying display was terminated” – The Telegraph, link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...r-earlier.html
The subject display is available on YouTube. Note: height at start and completion of maneuvers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngQ8TmqU4
The Telegraph also states: “The Civil Aviation Authority confirmed it had an inspector at the Southport show, who spoke to Mr. Hill about the incident”
Apparently, the duty of the CAA to ensure public safety was fulfilled by speaking to Mr. Hill - any additional time and effort would have hindered the CAA crusade in pursuing pilots with high BMI levels (a formula invented by a Belgian chocolate maker in 1830).
“…the aircraft [Jet Provost] was observed to be inside the lateral separation minima for the event and also below the minimum height stipulated in the Article 162 Permission issued by the CAA.
A stop call was immediately issued by the Flying Display Director (FDD) on the display radio frequency and the flying display was terminated” – The Telegraph, link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...r-earlier.html
The subject display is available on YouTube. Note: height at start and completion of maneuvers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngQ8TmqU4
The Telegraph also states: “The Civil Aviation Authority confirmed it had an inspector at the Southport show, who spoke to Mr. Hill about the incident”
Apparently, the duty of the CAA to ensure public safety was fulfilled by speaking to Mr. Hill - any additional time and effort would have hindered the CAA crusade in pursuing pilots with high BMI levels (a formula invented by a Belgian chocolate maker in 1830).
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the job of the AAIB to investigate an air accident, not to assign or apportion blame.
Information or evidence of previous incidents may only be included if it is directly relevant to the accident under investigation. So previous breaches of display flying limits may be considered by criminal investgators when deciding to mount a prosecution, but not by the accident investigators for this specific incident. Had the aircraft suffered unrepaired damage as a result of some previous incident, then that would be relevant and included in the investigation to be eliminated or implicated as a possible cause.
The pilot's experience, actions and liability need to be assessed seperately unless there is prima facie evidence that this is a direct cause of the accident. It is interesting to note that all AAIB reports take considerable pains to anonymise the identity of pilots and crew involved, even if the full details are already published and in the public domain.
One of the areas addressed in the report was what degree of sanctions were applied to display pilots who breached the safety rules. It seems that a quiet word in the bar or via telephone after the display was concluded was deemed sufficient in most cases.
Information or evidence of previous incidents may only be included if it is directly relevant to the accident under investigation. So previous breaches of display flying limits may be considered by criminal investgators when deciding to mount a prosecution, but not by the accident investigators for this specific incident. Had the aircraft suffered unrepaired damage as a result of some previous incident, then that would be relevant and included in the investigation to be eliminated or implicated as a possible cause.
The pilot's experience, actions and liability need to be assessed seperately unless there is prima facie evidence that this is a direct cause of the accident. It is interesting to note that all AAIB reports take considerable pains to anonymise the identity of pilots and crew involved, even if the full details are already published and in the public domain.
One of the areas addressed in the report was what degree of sanctions were applied to display pilots who breached the safety rules. It seems that a quiet word in the bar or via telephone after the display was concluded was deemed sufficient in most cases.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA uses its resources to send threatening letters, investigate and test due to BMI levels, as too much pie puts the public in grave danger.
Flying too low and violating safety regulations at large public gatherings requires only a “quiet word in the bar”. Apparently, this method of CAA oversight is ineffective.
You are confusing relevance with the convenience of letting the CAA off the hook.
Flying too low and violating safety regulations at large public gatherings requires only a “quiet word in the bar”. Apparently, this method of CAA oversight is ineffective.
You are confusing relevance with the convenience of letting the CAA off the hook.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hill was interviewed again under caution on 1 June.
Shoreham air crash: Pilot Andy Hill re-interviewed by police - BBC News
Shoreham air crash: Pilot Andy Hill re-interviewed by police - BBC News
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Direct Bondi`s comments are highly pertinent. The book " Darker Shades of Blue " by Dr. Tony Kern is worth reading on the subject of rogue pilots. In writing this book he was motivated by the true story of Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland,and began a personal quest to understand rogue pilots. His book helps how to recognize their tendencies and how a misperception of "the right stuff" can lead to tragedy.
I think Bondi may have a point about the medical "branch" of the CAA...that aside I'll admit that whilst not having read the book I'm uneasy that that some are perhaps starting to draw comparisons ( albeit perhaps unwittingly) between the likes of Bud Holland and Andy Hill.
Can any of the display pilots here tell us how often in a season/career a generally law abiding "non rogue" pilot might provoke a "knock it off" from the Flying Display Director.
Can any of the display pilots here tell us how often in a season/career a generally law abiding "non rogue" pilot might provoke a "knock it off" from the Flying Display Director.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue that is raised is what personal characteristics and qualities distinguish the rogue pilot.
In Bud Holland`s case, the subsequent investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to three factors:
Holland’s personality and behavior, USAF leaders’ delayed or inadequate reactions to earlier incidents involving Holland, and the sequence of events during the aircraft’s final flight.
The crash, since has been used in military and civilian aviation environments as a case study in teaching crew resource management. It is also often used by the US armed forces during aviation safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behaviour of anyone who violates safety procedures.
Gouli says:
"One of the areas addressed in the report was what degree of sanctions were applied to display pilots who breached the safety rules. It seems that a quiet word in the bar or via telephone after the display was concluded was deemed sufficient in most cases."
So, is just a quiet word in the bar or over the phone a remedy or a placebo.
In Bud Holland`s case, the subsequent investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to three factors:
Holland’s personality and behavior, USAF leaders’ delayed or inadequate reactions to earlier incidents involving Holland, and the sequence of events during the aircraft’s final flight.
The crash, since has been used in military and civilian aviation environments as a case study in teaching crew resource management. It is also often used by the US armed forces during aviation safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behaviour of anyone who violates safety procedures.
Gouli says:
"One of the areas addressed in the report was what degree of sanctions were applied to display pilots who breached the safety rules. It seems that a quiet word in the bar or via telephone after the display was concluded was deemed sufficient in most cases."
So, is just a quiet word in the bar or over the phone a remedy or a placebo.
