Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
How on earth do you propose to manage spectators off the display site!
That's an impossible task and would make air shows close down if a requirement. ,
How would you control the residents who live adjacent to the Farnborough Air Show for example?
The fact the Hunter ended up on a road is just plain bad luck, you can't control destiny.
That's an impossible task and would make air shows close down if a requirement. ,
How would you control the residents who live adjacent to the Farnborough Air Show for example?
The fact the Hunter ended up on a road is just plain bad luck, you can't control destiny.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with G on this, the findings of the accident investigation will have to focus more on the airshow environment rather than the participating aircraft. Yes, the energy management, and possible trajectory of the aircraft will remain focal points, but no matter how hard one tries, it is not possible to assure that a plane is going to go where intended. The only certain thing to protect "the public" is to assure that the path intended or potential is clear of "innocents".
This will result in an increased burden upon airshow organizers to present an operational plan which considers a broader scope of unintended outcomes, and mitigation. The regulator will not want the task of "designing" the safe environment, only "approving" of a proposal when compliant. I expect that the AAIB will be making recommendations as to what changes would be appropriate to the environment in general, and the CAA will eagerly await those findings so it appears that are being proactive.
This will result in an increased burden upon airshow organizers to present an operational plan which considers a broader scope of unintended outcomes, and mitigation. The regulator will not want the task of "designing" the safe environment, only "approving" of a proposal when compliant. I expect that the AAIB will be making recommendations as to what changes would be appropriate to the environment in general, and the CAA will eagerly await those findings so it appears that are being proactive.
It's normal to control crowds for their, and the public's safety if for example there's a large football match - I don't see a large moral difference between that and ensuring the safety of offsite spectators at an airshow.
Or, alternately, modify the display arrangements so that high energy vectors can't come close to areas where unauthorised spectators have significant potential to be.
G
Or, alternately, modify the display arrangements so that high energy vectors can't come close to areas where unauthorised spectators have significant potential to be.
G
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G. whilst I agree safety at airshows needs updating and a more through check and risk assessments undertaken. I disagree that the cause is the least important part of the AAIB investigation.
The AAIB role is to establish the fault and make recommendations to reduce the risk of future accidents, whether they are participating at airshows, practicing, training or just flying from A2B . They look at the whole picture and see if there is something that could be changed/tweeked that would reduce the risk regardless of were the aircraft is.
If the fault is down to poor maintenance of an aircraft then just reviewing airshows will not stop future accidents. Unless the airshow organisations undertake an inspection and review of each single aircraft to ensure they are fit to fly. Which they won't/can't so rely upon, like the CAA, for the maintenance organisations to follow manufacturers recommendations/guidelines and the relevant licence agreements.
It is unfortunate that this accident happened at an airshow but the airshow wasn't necessary the reason for the crash, the airshow organisers had covered the safety of those paying as they are required to do so and so had the pilot by maintaining the crowdline, it is with hindsight which is a wonderful thing that maybe the area near/over the A27 was not deemed as high risk like the college.
The AAIB role is to establish the fault and make recommendations to reduce the risk of future accidents, whether they are participating at airshows, practicing, training or just flying from A2B . They look at the whole picture and see if there is something that could be changed/tweeked that would reduce the risk regardless of were the aircraft is.
If the fault is down to poor maintenance of an aircraft then just reviewing airshows will not stop future accidents. Unless the airshow organisations undertake an inspection and review of each single aircraft to ensure they are fit to fly. Which they won't/can't so rely upon, like the CAA, for the maintenance organisations to follow manufacturers recommendations/guidelines and the relevant licence agreements.
It is unfortunate that this accident happened at an airshow but the airshow wasn't necessary the reason for the crash, the airshow organisers had covered the safety of those paying as they are required to do so and so had the pilot by maintaining the crowdline, it is with hindsight which is a wonderful thing that maybe the area near/over the A27 was not deemed as high risk like the college.
The reason I have a different opinion to you Hebog, is partly that flying at airshows has always been accepted to be relatively risky act, participated in by knowledgeable and competent individuals. The risk of an accident should always be minimised, but cannot reasonably be considered to be as near-zero as even normal GA flying, let alone air transport.
But especially: aviation safety regulation is first and foremost about protection of people who are not expert participants - in other words paying passengers and innocent third parties. Lower down the ladder is the protection of knowledgeable aircrew.
So, in this case, yes - of course - identification of the cause of the crash and prevention of future related accidents is extremely important.
BUT, it is not within the mindset that governs aviation safety regulation, as important as measures to protect the general public from the consequences of a crash.
G
But especially: aviation safety regulation is first and foremost about protection of people who are not expert participants - in other words paying passengers and innocent third parties. Lower down the ladder is the protection of knowledgeable aircrew.
So, in this case, yes - of course - identification of the cause of the crash and prevention of future related accidents is extremely important.
BUT, it is not within the mindset that governs aviation safety regulation, as important as measures to protect the general public from the consequences of a crash.
G
Cows getting bigger
Great stuff I'm impressed.
It's my term for something that determines that for example, an out of control airliner landed in a deserted field rather than Staines town centre.
It's my term for something that determines that for example, an out of control airliner landed in a deserted field rather than Staines town centre.
So what you are all asking for is a set of guidelines/ rules / process / regulation / best practice to manage the risk at airshows.... Which guess what? We already have, and in spades! In fact a document that relates to the same was looked at, reviewed and updated within the months prior to this accident. So why is any new set of documentation going to provide additional protection or safe guard??
I think what is fundamentally being missed here is that people make mistakes and when they do nothing that is written down makes a hill of beans difference to a potential accident. And before people get all emotive remember this mistake could be pilot, mechanic, regulation or organisational. In the end it potentially makes no difference.
Having said all that what we can not ignore - it's just a great pity we have this huge thrash about in the lead up to this great AAIB or similar reveal - is humans will never fail to fail. If you want more recent evidence of how this continued thrashing fails "aviation" just reflect upon the recent accident and fatality at the world air games. Ultimately low time in the regime being demanded in a "higher" work load environment where those with over sight either turn a blind eye or bend things to make things fit are and will be factors in both.
I think what is fundamentally being missed here is that people make mistakes and when they do nothing that is written down makes a hill of beans difference to a potential accident. And before people get all emotive remember this mistake could be pilot, mechanic, regulation or organisational. In the end it potentially makes no difference.
Having said all that what we can not ignore - it's just a great pity we have this huge thrash about in the lead up to this great AAIB or similar reveal - is humans will never fail to fail. If you want more recent evidence of how this continued thrashing fails "aviation" just reflect upon the recent accident and fatality at the world air games. Ultimately low time in the regime being demanded in a "higher" work load environment where those with over sight either turn a blind eye or bend things to make things fit are and will be factors in both.
So what you are all asking for is a set of guidelines/ rules / process / regulation / best practice to manage the risk at airshows.... Which guess what? We already have, and in spades!
I am quite certain AAIB will be actively reviewing every damned word of them, and think we're likely to see some fairly robust recommendations in their report.
"Sh1t happens, can't be prevented" is just not an acceptable response to the death of 11 innocent people.
Any review by CAA post accident, but pre-AAIB report can't be regarded as anything but interim measures.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this mistake could be pilot, mechanic, regulation or organisational. In the end it potentially makes no difference.
It makes a difference - I'm sure there are some families who can explain it in very dramatic terms.
This was a voluntary entertainment activity which went very bad. There was no need for the pilot to fly that maneuver, particularly in the minds of people who had zero interest in the airshow, and were just going about their business. Sure, it's exciting to watch the air displays, but society in general does not need them.
Society does need a fire truck driving down a road to an emergency call, and had a fire truck struck and killed 11 people, you can imagine the outrage. it would be very slightly tempered by the need for that truck to drive there, so the airshow is less vital than that.
The CAA cannot be seen to not be taking decisive action. If we pilots don't embrace the idea that improved assurance of public safety is needed, greater yet restrictions will be imposed upon us. Display aviation's best interests would be served by the leaders in the airshow industry, both pilots and organizers, stepping up to present ideas for improvement, rather than appearing to resist.
Example: In Canada, a long time ago, flying aircraft with what a pilot judged to be small amounts of frost on the wings was quietly tolerated. It might have been a factor in the occasional accident of a light aircraft, flown by an unwitting pilot, but little was done to highlight it as a danger, much less prohibit it. Then a crew crashed an airliner in northern Ontario, and frost on the wings was a prime factor. Well Transport Canada went wild with absolute regulation about no tolerance for any frozen contamination - I'm surprised they still let us fly in the rain! It was reactive, as will be the CAA changes which are inevitable form this event.
If an industry/activity survives below the horizon of public awareness of risk, it may continue. But once an excessive risk is identified, the regulator can't not take action - they represent the entire public, and they're going to be seen to make a difference. probably by reaction to the side of caution.
We must accept the work of the AAIB and CAA as being the outcome of the best effort in the public interest, or risk being branded more as unsafe risk takers, and incur prolonged scrutiny and more regulation.
Step / G - laws and regulation don't stop people with a certain mindset, and isn't this a case that certain elements of practice have been normalised so that even though it's the wrong thing to be doing it gets accepted. Very sadly and in many ways it's depressing that communique out of the AAIB and the CAA to the world thus far has been a squabble over paperwork when they and interested parties could have been actively engaged in the detail of this sortie and how it came about. All of that detail was available pretty much from day 1.
Genghis
Please tell me what rules you would require to stop an aircraft in distress impacting "innocent victims " in the surrounding countryside for example during the Farnborough Air Show.
What you are asking is completely unrealistic. Complete safety is only possible if you ban displays.
Please tell me what rules you would require to stop an aircraft in distress impacting "innocent victims " in the surrounding countryside for example during the Farnborough Air Show.
What you are asking is completely unrealistic. Complete safety is only possible if you ban displays.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra - maybe they have looked at the sortie , spoken to the pilot and everything was OK, entry height, speed etc but something went wrong with the aircraft which the pilot couldn't correct and therefore not pilot error. I don't think ,from the footage I have seen, he was displaying over the road, just this is where he came out of the loop, either intentionally or by fault.
The AAIB are primarily investigating the accident and trying to establish the cause, so that they can identify improvements/recommendations to prevent such a tragedy happening again. Like Farnborough all those years ago, when crowdlines were introduced etc. The results of this will also assist the CAA revise the existing documentation on airshow hosting, display pilots, licences etc that they are reviewing as a result.
'interested parties could have been actively engaged in the detail of this sortie and how it came about. All of that detail was available pretty much from day 1.'
The AAIB are primarily investigating the accident and trying to establish the cause, so that they can identify improvements/recommendations to prevent such a tragedy happening again. Like Farnborough all those years ago, when crowdlines were introduced etc. The results of this will also assist the CAA revise the existing documentation on airshow hosting, display pilots, licences etc that they are reviewing as a result.
'interested parties could have been actively engaged in the detail of this sortie and how it came about. All of that detail was available pretty much from day 1.'
Genghis
Please tell me what rules you would require to stop an aircraft in distress impacting "innocent victims " in the surrounding countryside for example during the Farnborough Air Show.
What you are asking is completely unrealistic. Complete safety is only possible if you ban displays.
Please tell me what rules you would require to stop an aircraft in distress impacting "innocent victims " in the surrounding countryside for example during the Farnborough Air Show.
What you are asking is completely unrealistic. Complete safety is only possible if you ban displays.
However, complete safety as a fictional construct is a necessary tool in aviation.
It could, perhaps, start by not having a display line which puts energy vectors along a busy public road.
Farnborough is a red herring, because the majority of it is a trade show with low energy controlled displays - just a bit of "bread and circuses" for the general public bolted on the end. However, it is an entirely fair question if you ask it about Fairford with 50,000 legit visitors per day and more sat on surrounding roads and fields.
Basically I think that careful analysis is needed to place display lines and consequent velocity vectors where they co-incide with groups of people as little as possible. Yes - this may mean that some sites just aren't suitable for airshows and that needs to be accepted. The AAIB interrim report suggests that that was inadequately the case at Shoreham - the full report of course may say something different, although somehow I doubt it.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could, perhaps, start by not having a display line which puts energy vectors along a busy public road.
With an option always being to stop traffic on the vulnerable portion of the road for the few minutes where there would be a risk from the one or two aircraft considered to have enough energy to create risk....
Or, display the aircraft with maneuvers limited to those which do not create the vectors to the vulnerable areas in the case of loss of control.
When I last organized a small aviation event (more than 20 years ago) the regulator required me to consider all of these aspects (and we did close a public road for a brief period). I was also required to personally review the documentation for every pilot and aircraft participating for apparent compliance.
It was funny that two of the aircraft proposed for participation, had been flown in by pilots who did not posses a pilot's license at all! I quietly pointed out to them that not only would they not participate in "the games", but they should not even flown in at all - the the two neatly dressed guy over there were Transport Canada inspectors, so walk the other direction!
Hebog - sure its possible there was an issue with the aircraft but when they (AAIB) state in the first release that there were no obvious abnormalities and the aircraft was responding to the control inputs of the pilot, if facts emerged to suggest otherwise you'd say wouldn't you?
You add the terms fault and intentional - which then become emotive - and actually the entirety of the issues will come at some point with the final report regardless of how many times or how long a can gets kicked down the road. But that isn't the point of the comment. It is already known with absolute clarity what was planned to be flown v actual, the controls and process that lead to these events. These already lead to items of discussion, regardless of the final reports ultimate conclusion for the cause of the accident.
Yet sadly debate is stopped because we have this over riding view to sit on hands and do nothing, see nothing and hear nothing until you get to that point. If we take a position that those engaged in aviation are essentially good and bright people it doesn't take too much a leap of faith to understand that if you now want to take issue with crowd lines at airshows or specifically at Shoreham there were alarms. There was a crash at Shoreham within the last 10 years, there was a crash of a similar type of aircraft, displaying only the month before at a different venue.
I don't believe the issue is with crowd lines and venues however. The issue is just to implement actual rules and regulations that currently exist and have people in oversight who add a sensible layer of control that one might call "the spirit of the regulation". Why does a man who can not and has not demonstrated he can at least roll his Hurricane given a DA on type, full stop? Why allow a 100ft floor to any part of a display when there are "not below 1000ft" , "not below 500ft" and " no over flight" boxing the entire venue?!
These are not sophisticated things to deal with, they just need competent and clear thinking individuals to draw the appropriate line. Yet in some corners you can't have that debate because people flare up and talk of blame and the media, lawsuits and other distractions to the issue.
You add the terms fault and intentional - which then become emotive - and actually the entirety of the issues will come at some point with the final report regardless of how many times or how long a can gets kicked down the road. But that isn't the point of the comment. It is already known with absolute clarity what was planned to be flown v actual, the controls and process that lead to these events. These already lead to items of discussion, regardless of the final reports ultimate conclusion for the cause of the accident.
Yet sadly debate is stopped because we have this over riding view to sit on hands and do nothing, see nothing and hear nothing until you get to that point. If we take a position that those engaged in aviation are essentially good and bright people it doesn't take too much a leap of faith to understand that if you now want to take issue with crowd lines at airshows or specifically at Shoreham there were alarms. There was a crash at Shoreham within the last 10 years, there was a crash of a similar type of aircraft, displaying only the month before at a different venue.
I don't believe the issue is with crowd lines and venues however. The issue is just to implement actual rules and regulations that currently exist and have people in oversight who add a sensible layer of control that one might call "the spirit of the regulation". Why does a man who can not and has not demonstrated he can at least roll his Hurricane given a DA on type, full stop? Why allow a 100ft floor to any part of a display when there are "not below 1000ft" , "not below 500ft" and " no over flight" boxing the entire venue?!
These are not sophisticated things to deal with, they just need competent and clear thinking individuals to draw the appropriate line. Yet in some corners you can't have that debate because people flare up and talk of blame and the media, lawsuits and other distractions to the issue.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra - I was trying to point out that as we (the general observers) don't know his planned routine it is difficult to tell if that's what the pilot planned. ie to fly over that intersection on the road or if he was having problems with the aircraft and as a result this is where he ended up.
Whilst I agree the AAIB reports state it appears the controls were normal, this doesn't mean they were. After all first suggestions were the aircraft appeared OK to fly as it had been inspected by an aircraft engineer but as it appears now maybe it wasn't.
Whilst I agree the AAIB reports state it appears the controls were normal, this doesn't mean they were. After all first suggestions were the aircraft appeared OK to fly as it had been inspected by an aircraft engineer but as it appears now maybe it wasn't.
I often wonder how many aircraft there are, based on private strips, never visiting a big airport, that have no official C of A flown by pilots with no current licence. I reckon it happens quite a lot, particularly in big countries like Canada, USA and Australia where you are often far away from authority.
G
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liability
Shoreham airshow crash victims may be in line for huge compensation pay out | Daily Mail Online
Found this. Surely this is just the insurance company paying out as no cause has yet been established and therefore no liability. As per the following :-
Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
This states that where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land, by an aircraft while in flight, the owners of that aircraft are strictly liable.
In essence, the Act directs that the aircraft owner shall be treated as having caused the crash and the victims are automatically entitled to compensation without having to prove anything.
The insurance company will then decide once the investigation has been completed, or in the light of new information, if there is the need for a counter claim against anyone else, such as a maintenance firm, parts supplier or the air show organisers.
I personally don't think that any liability has been admitted by anyone yet.
Found this. Surely this is just the insurance company paying out as no cause has yet been established and therefore no liability. As per the following :-
Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
This states that where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land, by an aircraft while in flight, the owners of that aircraft are strictly liable.
In essence, the Act directs that the aircraft owner shall be treated as having caused the crash and the victims are automatically entitled to compensation without having to prove anything.
The insurance company will then decide once the investigation has been completed, or in the light of new information, if there is the need for a counter claim against anyone else, such as a maintenance firm, parts supplier or the air show organisers.
I personally don't think that any liability has been admitted by anyone yet.