Originally Posted by
tucumseh
Yet the aircraft was not airworthy or serviceable, and operating under a fundamentally flawed permit to fly. And the pilot was not told this.
However, I agree with the general points you make.
TUC My comment was referring to the point that the 'aircraft itself' did not cause or was part responsible for the incident notwithstanding any issues re its permit. In fact it only proved what a fine machine it was and how sound the design was even when pushed beyond what was reasonable for the conditions. However it 'was grounded', and one has to assume this action was taken in order to 'create the impression' that the stable door has been closed even though that particular horse had never 'bolted'. One has to remember that safety rules regarding airshows were originally drawn up to protect crowds attending such events, and the Pilots briefings were always quite clear on such basic items as not flying over the crowd or turning 'towards' the crowd line. These rules were very much airfield related, but could include the wider scope of areas to avoid whilst positioning. However these rules did not replace the overall conditions as per the ANO which applied to aircraft operations in general,and include many public safety issues as the norm. What Shoreham highlighted (if it needed highlighting) was that some display locations were unsuitable for some aircraft that required a larger positioning space to cope with a short crowd line and nearby built up areas. The other factor is the 'off airfield' areas that attract collections of people watching the display but are not part of the 'display safety regulations', and although on paper covered by the ANO in fact should be part of the overall display organisation 'planning' to mitigate any potential issues that this may cause. As to the actual Shoreham incident itself we are left with a public that have not really been given an honest appraisal of all the facts, and the effective loss of a hugely popular display scene overall.