Reckless behaviour?
Atom:
AAIB Bulletin: 11/2009
G-HURR
Air Accident Report 6/2009
Causal factors:
1
The accident probably occurred as a result
of the pilot attempting an unplanned rolling
manoeuvre.
2
When the manoeuvre was commenced,
the airspeed was adequate, but the nose-up
pitch attitude was insufficient to enable the
manoeuvre to be completed safely in the
height available.
3
When the roll stopped in the inverted position,
the aircraft’s nose dropped rapidly and there
was insufficient height available for the
recovery manoeuvre the pilot attempted.
From the AAIB report into the last fatal airshow crash at Shoreham. Would you say that attempting an unplanned manouevre in the way that this pilot did was possibly "reckless". No doubt he also did not intend to crash. Fortunately, the consequences of this error of judgement were confined to that of the loss of life of the pilot, and the loss of the aircraft to those in the community who enjoy seeing these planes fly.
Recommendations in the report included that pilots should have current experience of flying similar routines in similar aircraft, that the display itself should be approved in specifics, and that human factors need to be given prior consideration and pilots trained in recognition of such.
My understanding is that if a driver in an emergency vehicle answering an emergency disobeys a red light signal, that they are subject to the same law as everyone else, but the CPS will usually decide not to prosecute.
The difference I would say between an 'accident' involving vehicles on the road, and an airshow crash, is that most of us, unless habitual pedestrians, use the roads, and an acceptance of risk is natural and necessary in order to move around. Attending or performing at an airshow is not necessary and usual in terms of behaviour, it is essentially unecessary and a matter of choice. What makes this situation interesting, is that those killed were not officially spectating, and many just happened to be passing by lawfully using the road, as such, in these terms, their deaths were completely unecessary.
Assuming at this point, that at the very least, the latest crash involved a degree of error or misjudgement on the part of the pilot, and if displays were to continue without significant change, would not another crash in several years time and possibly this time on top of Shoreham or Lancing towns themselves, appear negligent at the very least on the part of the regulating authority?