Originally Posted by
typerated
Ahhhh are you sure that Airworthiness is THE lesson from Shoreham?
Ill give you a clue - NO! Even if the Hunter was legally unairworthy, it was not the reason for the crash- not even peripherally!
The unasked question about Shoreham is could it happen again? Are UK airshows any safer since the CAA review?
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...00%20MAY16.pdf
My personal feeling is the answer is - Not really.
I suspect that we are in violent agreement about UK airshows. My point about airworthiness is that it is the sine qua non of aviation. Without it, no matter how well maintained, no matter how well flown, an aircraft is fatally compromised and looking for a place to have its accident. As to the Shoreham tragedy, it shares with Mull the dubious distinction of killing large numbers of people who had nothing to do with the maintaining or operating of the aircraft. It also shares the scandal of an accident investigation that chose not to delve deeply into gross regulatory failings that were known about.
Both investigations were compromised by not considering all the evidence available. That is a scandal that casts doubt upon the findings and 'the reason for the crash'. There was a time when Air Accident Investigations, be they civil or military, were thorough and turned over all the stones to determine the cause. The Comet tragedies being a case in point. They were unairworthy, and the reason they were was proved and remedial action taken. My own fleet, the HP Hastings, was grounded for months following the Little Baldon disaster. They were unairworthy and extensive remedial action taken, even though they were out of service a mere few years later. Now we have question marks hanging over whole military fleets, and manufacturers fitted up to cover the incompetence of the regulatory authority. I'd say that's a big lesson to take on board, no matter who or what was responsible for Shoreham. Wouldn't you?