Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

Old 26th Aug 2015, 09:33
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: La Rochelle.
Age: 45
Posts: 500
ACW367 - We're not stupid. I understand statistics and the chance of being struck by space debris, a bus, the Glasgow bin lorry etc. They are relevant statistics for living your life. The situation here is not the odds of it happening - we all know what they are. It's the fact that uninvolved people were killed as a result of other peoples entertainment at an airshow. The evidence is there for us to see - it happened. What isn't known yet is why it happened but I'm pretty sure that the statistics of it happening won't play any part in the final report.
clareprop is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 09:46
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Farnham
Posts: 30
Fun not allowed

Henry Crun, Clareprop and others taking a similar line: are you seriously suggesting that any activity undertaken for fun should have ZERO risk for third parties?

So perhaps I can drive myself to work because that is useful, but I shouldn't drive myself to the seaside to lie on a beach because I'm exposing third parties to risk purely for my own pleasure?

These things are not black and white. Even trivial activities that we could all avoid can involve mortal third-party risk, do you seriously believe we should ban them all?

The only way the real world works is by making an informed judgement as to whether the LEVEL of risk is acceptable. This accident may further inform such decision making, once the full facts are known. In the meantime the CAA seems to have taken a sensible and measured response.
Weeeee is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:04
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 9
Standard Practices

My own field is piston engined aerobatics, not jets, but my DA limit is 100' aerobatics and 50' fly-by, so the idea that there is a general hard deck for display flying of 500' is incorrect.

I know others with lower limits than mine.
Whipstall is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:08
  #364 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by ACW367
The Government and the Coroner system should not over-react to what is statistically a small (but tragic) blip in overall safety record statistics.

Their efforts would be better spent in regulating technical improvements to improve road safety.
This is an unfortunate way to construct an argument.

They are improving road safety.

For about 25 years road fatalities have been decreasing by about 40% in a 10 year period. 1990 had 5217, last year 1775.

The last 3 years have had the lowest 3 UK road fatalities annual totals since records began. The UK now has the best statistics in Europe.

This is of course no reason for complacency, and we are still seeing improvements in cars, roads, and driver education.

Aviation of course also has ambitions to increase safety and see casualty statistics falling, people all the time thinking about how to get there.

It might be a bad idea to make diversionary comparisons with road safety considerations given the success that is happening there. It might risk seeming complacent and disinclined to look at ourselves.

Last edited by aox; 26th Aug 2015 at 10:23.
aox is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:31
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
I can understand the frustration some feel here about people quoting statistics all the time. They are two different subjects. If you are killed as a result of a road traffic accident, the police don't pop round to your family and say 'Terrible sorry, still, just a statistic you know'. They have to investigate why it happened and bring charges against anyone who committed an offence. The information will also form part of manufacturer and road safety research. It happens all the time because there are a lot of road traffic accidents. In the same way, if someone is killed at, or as a result of an airshow, yes it is an event with a low statistical probability but it happened and therefore the police, with technical and causal input from the AAIB, must investigate why and if any criminal action has to be taken against the pilot or the organisers. The CAA will then prescribe standards as (or if) necessary but as someone else inferred, I doubt they'll do all the examination, come to a conclusion and have a board member say 'Yeah but come on, what are the statistics of it happening again..'
strake is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:50
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 18
West Sussex County Council member for Shoreham Debbie Kennard has come out against holding the airshow again.

Councillor calls for end of event in wake of tragedy.

Also in the local press is this report from one of the first firefighters on the scene. He expresses his disgust at the people running around with cameras, but also says he say some fantastic human kindness. It also makes mention of recovering the pilot.

(Mods, if posting updates about local reaction is felt inappropriate then please delete this post).
slfie is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 11:13
  #367 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,590
The Argus report, mentioned above by slfie, is a very well written and balanced piece about the experience of one of the outstanding individuals dealing with the immediate aftermath. Well worth a read.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 11:26
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 54
Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.

If you fix that problem, then ... that's it isn't it ?
rideforever is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 11:34
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 64
Posts: 1,577
Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.
Why phrase it in that way? That short sentence is highly loaded with misleading elements.
robin is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 12:24
  #370 (permalink)  
RF4
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: CNX
Age: 76
Posts: 25
DAngerous Manoeuvre"

Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.

If you fix that problem, then ... that's it isn't it ?
At this time there should really be no "issues". It is too early after the event. Now is a time for quiet reflection and mourning. There will be ample time for knee jerk reactions at a later date, even should you not wish to wait for the preliminary report.

You cold say that "dangerous manoeuvre" prejudges that all such events should be removed from the presence of people. Perhaps we could show it only on the tely or the Internet. I choose to focus on the "main road". It should not be so close to an aerodrome, and should be re-routed. The old A27 could become a memorial park to the victims. We really don't need all such knee jerk nonsense so soon, if at all -- people are dead

Last edited by RF4; 26th Aug 2015 at 12:29. Reason: fat finger typos
RF4 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 13:37
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
RF4

i can understand your sentiment but wonder on cost whether moving a road is a viable option?

I can see that there is merit with air show venues looking at more the surrounding area and making sure the flight paths do not go over high built up areas or busy roads.

With Shoreham it should be possible and more practical to route the display over the Sea rather than the existing patterns flown?

My fear is the aircraft being pushed further away making the spectacle a non spectacle of watching distant dots which will lead to air shows loosing interest as the excitement is a major part of the attraction

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 13:39
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 66
Posts: 39
rideforever:
Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.
Well you didn't put in a question mark, but you seem to be asking a question, and my answer is: No, because that isn't what happened.

If the photos with overlayed flight-paths are to be believed, he did the manoeuvre(s) over fields, and should have just crossed the road straight-and-level, or perhaps in a slight descent. Things went wrong resulting in not enough energy to do the latter, with the result that we know. Saying (as a lot of people have) that he was doing aeros over the road seem to be wrong, from all I've seen.

Bear in mind that descending over that road is what every aircraft landing on 20 (I think!) will do.

Any attempt to "solve" it this side of the investigation with: "Pilot error, end of" will be a grave injustice to all concerned.

- Howard
HDRW is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 13:53
  #373 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 4
Perhaps there should be legislation requiring all spectators at air shows to be protected beneath vast domes of bomb proof transparent material? That would ensure that such an ongoing tragedy as the one at Ramstein on August 28th, 1998 was never, in the future, anything other than a minor inconvenience.
But such a requirement would afford no protection to people who had no interest in aviation and who were going about their normal business outside the zonal comfort zone; a bitter irony that is relevant to this latest tragedy.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 14:07
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 54
If the loop had been to the north over fields, or south over the airfield, or
the loop had been perpendicular to the A27, then things would have been much safer.
In the event, very bad decisions have been taken.
A parallel route over the road, with the most dangerous aspect directly over the road, descending vertically over the road, opens up a maximum of danger.

Is there a problem with planning displays with these restrictions ?
rideforever is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 14:17
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
Originally Posted by HDRW View Post
Bear in mind that descending over that road is what every aircraft landing on 20 (I think!) will do.
I suppose one will have to put a stop to that as well.

@henry_crun: the point of the video you posted seems to be that AH was an experienced display pilot.

@ASRAAM: some good points that got me thinking. The 5500' ceiling/limit has been mentioned quite a bit during this discussion. I would take as a given that all of the display pilots for that day would know that limit in advance, and would plan their maneuvers with that limitation very much in mind -- busting such limits would be apparent to any radar operator on the day and brought the kind of attention one prefers to avoid.

@rideforever: The above leads me to the conclusion that the maneuvers for this display were planned within that constraint, as well as all other limitations, and determined to be achievable within the rules for display flying. The orientation of the maneuvers tend to be based on where the display audience is. (I have some very small experience with pre-planning (I was assisting) for airshows at air stations, which included airspace constraints as well as "no go areas" on the ground).

@MachineBird: g-limits without a suit vary. When I learned aerobatics initially, I wasn't as good at dealing with 4g's as I became with more experience. The question you raise on possible g-loc will doubtless be pursued by the AIB. Hopefully there is enough evidence for them to arrive at a finding regarding that possible cause factor.

@Jazbag (and others interested): over on the Military Aircrew Forum, BEagle made some comments on manual reversion.

@CourtneyMil: that long post from your friend might benefit from being edited to all italics, or being in a quote box. It initially was difficult to discern "whose voice was on the radio frequency." I had to go back to the beginning and find the transition point from your voice to the beginning of your friend's discourse.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 14:22
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
But such a requirement would afford no protection to people who had no interest in aviation and who were going about their normal business outside the zonal comfort zone; a bitter irony that is relevant to this latest tragedy.
No one goes to any show spectacle motor race or whatever to be killed or seriously injured. You only have to look at the tragic accident at Alton Towers where kids went for the excitement and thrills of the rides?

I do not see a lot of difference between willingly choosing and paying to attend a venue where there is a tragic event or being a innocent person with no interest in the event who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

both are equally tragic and neither chose to be involved in such an accident
But people go for the thrill as in Alton Towers and its a difficult balance putting on a show which gives that thrill or is so protected that the spectator is filled with boredom and does not go again.

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 14:24
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 64
Posts: 1,577
My fear is the aircraft being pushed further away making the spectacle a non spectacle of watching distant dots which will lead to air shows loosing interest as the excitement is a major part of the attraction
There is another important issue for airshow organisers.

If the display is offshore in places such as Bournemouth or Dawlish, how do they get the entrance fees that help pay for the event and to seedcorn next year's? Donations?

Think of what would happen with Fairford if it relied on donations.
robin is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 14:32
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 56
Posts: 101
@Pace:

Different risk assessments. I may be driving along the road unaware that there is any additional risk beyond the normal, while someone with a ticket to the show has at least had the opportunity to factor in the risk.
Nialler is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 15:01
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 80
The Southend airshow was of course over water, fantastic viewing from the cliffs area, and free to get in.

Cancelled because it cost too much. You'd have thought the income just from parking fees would have made it pay, before you get to the increase in trade, but it appears not to be the case.

Other seaside locations would most likely have the same issues, too hard to control and therefore ticket, the public access. And by their very nature, paid airshows can be watched for free by people just outside.
Interested Passenger is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 15:12
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,459
Hawker Hunter's final take-off 'unusual' expert says

Humpf! Initial acceleration looked good for a non-afterburning aircraft.
The disappearance across the horizon was about the same as with my old F-9 Cougar from the same time period.
Machinbird is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.