Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB report shall stand on its own, and I would accept its findings with confidence. My "so true" is my expression of concurrence with the statement I quoted. I agree with the notion that the pilot accepted responsibility of control of the aircraft, and, while exercising that control the aircraft ended up in a very bad place.
Had the pilot made different control inputs, the plane would have ended up somewhere else. I think it is very true that pilots must always understand where an aircraft could end up based upon their control inputs, and fly accordingly.
I have always flown considering that conclusion, no jumping required....
Had the pilot made different control inputs, the plane would have ended up somewhere else. I think it is very true that pilots must always understand where an aircraft could end up based upon their control inputs, and fly accordingly.
I have always flown considering that conclusion, no jumping required....
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes the investigators have a very difficult task- some wreckage found a year later, no witnesses, etc. This is not one of those cases. There were many witnesses and video from many angles, including inside the cockpit. When the AAIB report states the Hunter "appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs" they are basing that on a careful examination of the video, particularly the video from inside the cockpit. The phrase "appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs" speaks volumes.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step Turn
First, you jump to the conclusion that a Maule pilot was reckless and guilty of an offence which he clearly was not. Now you come here stating that this pilot made control movements to put the aircraft in to the ground.
Please don't come here in Mother Teresa style stating the obvious in that that pilots must understand how control surfaces work in relation to their control inputs. Whilst it is refreshing to learn that you will accept the AAIB findings, perhaps you would also like to give us your interpretation of the word "accident".
PrivtPilotRadarTech
The phrase "appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs" speaks volumes.
Does it? Who for?
First, you jump to the conclusion that a Maule pilot was reckless and guilty of an offence which he clearly was not. Now you come here stating that this pilot made control movements to put the aircraft in to the ground.
Please don't come here in Mother Teresa style stating the obvious in that that pilots must understand how control surfaces work in relation to their control inputs. Whilst it is refreshing to learn that you will accept the AAIB findings, perhaps you would also like to give us your interpretation of the word "accident".
PrivtPilotRadarTech
The phrase "appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs" speaks volumes.
Does it? Who for?
It seems to me that "appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs was clearcut."
The aeroplane was behaving as it was supposed to, but it's not totally impossible that there was some abberative behaviour that AAIB couldn't see from the limited evidence they had.
Personally, whilst I disagree with him to some extent, I think that Step's views about the Maule pilot are entirely defensible. It's not at-all hard to make a case that flying along the surface of a lake skimming the wheels in the water is reckless. That wasn't so far as I can see the concern of the court - their concern was whether it was illegal or not - and a clear decision was reached that it wasn't.
It I decide to drive down to the coast tomorrow and try and swim the English Channel without training or backup, doing so would be reckless, stupid and irresponsible. It would not so far as I know be illegal.
If I train & build up a lot of experience in low flying, risk assess it carefully, and fly a carefully planned route at 250ft in a twin with plenty of excess power over the top of various houses, that would be annoying and illegal. But, from the point of view of safety, arguably it's not all that reckless.
They ain't the same thing.
G
The aeroplane was behaving as it was supposed to, but it's not totally impossible that there was some abberative behaviour that AAIB couldn't see from the limited evidence they had.
Personally, whilst I disagree with him to some extent, I think that Step's views about the Maule pilot are entirely defensible. It's not at-all hard to make a case that flying along the surface of a lake skimming the wheels in the water is reckless. That wasn't so far as I can see the concern of the court - their concern was whether it was illegal or not - and a clear decision was reached that it wasn't.
It I decide to drive down to the coast tomorrow and try and swim the English Channel without training or backup, doing so would be reckless, stupid and irresponsible. It would not so far as I know be illegal.
If I train & build up a lot of experience in low flying, risk assess it carefully, and fly a carefully planned route at 250ft in a twin with plenty of excess power over the top of various houses, that would be annoying and illegal. But, from the point of view of safety, arguably it's not all that reckless.
They ain't the same thing.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 1st Apr 2016 at 10:49.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G
Reckless and/or illegal are of course not the same thing, and I have never said or implied they are. It was my submission weeks ago that the Maule pilot was neither, which was clearly endorsed by the court.
....and again, in my opinion, the Hunter pilot falls within the same category and was not reckless or doing anything illegal.
The AAIB is not that "clearcut" to me and has not been subject to any professional cross-examination. Hopefully, that will not be needed.
Reckless and/or illegal are of course not the same thing, and I have never said or implied they are. It was my submission weeks ago that the Maule pilot was neither, which was clearly endorsed by the court.
....and again, in my opinion, the Hunter pilot falls within the same category and was not reckless or doing anything illegal.
The AAIB is not that "clearcut" to me and has not been subject to any professional cross-examination. Hopefully, that will not be needed.
AAIB reports aren't supposed to be clearcut about conclusions and causes of course - that is not their purpose.
The purpose of an AAIB report is to provide recommendations which will support prevention of future accidents. In that regard, they're doing a good job, but it's still work in progress.
But, the statement about "appeared to be responding to the pilot's inputs", did seem to me clearcut in what it was saying - it appeared to be behaving as normal, but abberation couldn't be completely ruled out. A clearcut statement, not a clearcut conclusion.
Regarding the Maule pilot - I doubt that the court considered or cared about anything but the legality of the flight. It's not their job to reach conclusions about recklessness, save where being reckless is an illegal act.
G
The purpose of an AAIB report is to provide recommendations which will support prevention of future accidents. In that regard, they're doing a good job, but it's still work in progress.
But, the statement about "appeared to be responding to the pilot's inputs", did seem to me clearcut in what it was saying - it appeared to be behaving as normal, but abberation couldn't be completely ruled out. A clearcut statement, not a clearcut conclusion.
Regarding the Maule pilot - I doubt that the court considered or cared about anything but the legality of the flight. It's not their job to reach conclusions about recklessness, save where being reckless is an illegal act.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Illegal" is an observation of circumstances relative to society's laws (which of course can differ by locale). In some cases something which was not illegal later becomes so, when there is enough public pressure to change a law. For my observations, the public nearly never insist that laws become more permissive, particularly for aviation. I accept that in the case of the "Ullswater pilot", local laws were not broken. The justice system did it's job.
"Reckless" is a little more difficult to measure, it depends to some degree upon more activity specific knowledge - which our peers could be expected to have. So when I fly, I consider what my peers might say about decisions I make. I purposefully bring my plane into contact with the water regularly, my peers are fine with that. They would think poorly of me if I did it with the wheels extended. My insurer is also my peer, and would certainly deny a claim I could make following an event where I deliberately contacted the water with my wheels extended.
My peers in marine public service would think poorly of me if I undertook operations on the water without wearing a lifejacket, or immersion suit, conditions considered (I make no remark in this respect about the "Ullswater pilot", as I have no idea what he was wearing, just a general statement). My peers would think poorly of me if I undertook "unusual" marine operations in public view, without telling someone I was going to so as to prevent false emergency call. False emergency calls mean that response to real calls is delayed, and the public bear a cost.
As for the pilot of the Hunter, based upon what the AAIB has said thus far, I believe he flew an aircraft, which was controllable, in a way such that no further application of his control could prevent a crash. It was his job as pilot to maintain a safe margin of control for society's sake, and that margin was not maintained.
Referring to the relevant Canadian regulation, in part:
Though I realize that the authority to fly at an airshow may permit lower altitudes, I cannot imagine any authority, or member of the public, who would exempt the requirement to prevent a hazard to persons on the ground. Even if the airshow operator says "Hey, we have an exemption, you can fly low here...", that does not absolve a pilot from continuing to assure they maintain control of the aircraft so as to be able to prevent a hazard to persons on the ground.
If the public thinks that we pilots do not think we are always bound by that simple moral responsibility, the public will certainly insist that lawmakers create laws - more laws, because we pilots took a liberty with public safety...
And Jetblu, you'll believe this: When I once witnessed a microlight pilot seriously buzzing people on a beach - to the point they were ducking, I followed him until he landed, and spoke sharply to him about it. His apparent embarrassment and remorse to me (his peer) was persuasive such that I made no more of it.
When I once buzzed people on a beach, to draw attention to three apparently drowning swimmers off shore, I reported myself to the regulator shortly afterwords. I was thanked for my effort by Transport Canada (and the swimmers were rescued). I have never needed to perform low level aerobatics over an assembly of persons.
I respect Jetblu's privilege to disagree with me, but it does not sway my opinion of either event....
"Reckless" is a little more difficult to measure, it depends to some degree upon more activity specific knowledge - which our peers could be expected to have. So when I fly, I consider what my peers might say about decisions I make. I purposefully bring my plane into contact with the water regularly, my peers are fine with that. They would think poorly of me if I did it with the wheels extended. My insurer is also my peer, and would certainly deny a claim I could make following an event where I deliberately contacted the water with my wheels extended.
My peers in marine public service would think poorly of me if I undertook operations on the water without wearing a lifejacket, or immersion suit, conditions considered (I make no remark in this respect about the "Ullswater pilot", as I have no idea what he was wearing, just a general statement). My peers would think poorly of me if I undertook "unusual" marine operations in public view, without telling someone I was going to so as to prevent false emergency call. False emergency calls mean that response to real calls is delayed, and the public bear a cost.
As for the pilot of the Hunter, based upon what the AAIB has said thus far, I believe he flew an aircraft, which was controllable, in a way such that no further application of his control could prevent a crash. It was his job as pilot to maintain a safe margin of control for society's sake, and that margin was not maintained.
Referring to the relevant Canadian regulation, in part:
(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft
(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface,
(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface,
If the public thinks that we pilots do not think we are always bound by that simple moral responsibility, the public will certainly insist that lawmakers create laws - more laws, because we pilots took a liberty with public safety...
And Jetblu, you'll believe this: When I once witnessed a microlight pilot seriously buzzing people on a beach - to the point they were ducking, I followed him until he landed, and spoke sharply to him about it. His apparent embarrassment and remorse to me (his peer) was persuasive such that I made no more of it.
When I once buzzed people on a beach, to draw attention to three apparently drowning swimmers off shore, I reported myself to the regulator shortly afterwords. I was thanked for my effort by Transport Canada (and the swimmers were rescued). I have never needed to perform low level aerobatics over an assembly of persons.
I respect Jetblu's privilege to disagree with me, but it does not sway my opinion of either event....
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step You're wasted as a pilot and auxiliary fireman. You should take up a position as a traffic warden and really help your peers out.
Most pilots I know are fully aware of their moral responsibility to the public. Why you should think otherwise is simply baffling unless you believe it strengthens your discussion here. Again, what evidence do you have to categorically state that the Hunter pilot believes otherwise?
Most pilots I know are fully aware of their moral responsibility to the public. Why you should think otherwise is simply baffling unless you believe it strengthens your discussion here. Again, what evidence do you have to categorically state that the Hunter pilot believes otherwise?
How about we all just kick the ball, and not each other chaps?
Jetblu and Step are both aviation professionals with good reputations, it's really not that odd for such people to disagree on something - but absolutely no reason to make that disagreement personal.
G
Jetblu and Step are both aviation professionals with good reputations, it's really not that odd for such people to disagree on something - but absolutely no reason to make that disagreement personal.
G
What did the motor appear to be doing, from these exalted, omniscient insights?
If the previously mentioned AAIB's view that :-
""appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs" one assumes a view taken from the view recorded on the Go-Pro's rolling wings level could have been one option?
Quite how or why aftermarket camera footage is being treated in the same way as FDR information from a legal perspective is interesting because its fitment (the aftermarket video camera) has less to do with flight safety and more to do with capturing the event for other purposes, mainly I'd argue entertainment.
If we allow reasonable arguments about process to be turned into kicking a can down the road, it leads to a loss of credibility and is damaging in the long term.
Lets not forget that the display season ticks closer and with no published or accepted conclusion to the accident clearly the better management of any specific risk associated with the accident is impossible.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you're right G, but Step may not realise that he is on a very touchy subject at the moment, throwing some wild accusations about a very professional pilot whom is based at my home airfield and one of the nicest guys you could ever meet, who's not in a very comfortable place right now.
It's a tragic event all round, no mistake about that.
It's a tragic event all round, no mistake about that.
Hunter takes off and lands at about 130kts.
At 100kts , inverted, as reported many posts ago, all you can do is spin if you clank it.
...the manoeuvre was a recovery from the vertical, I think.
At 100kts , inverted, as reported many posts ago, all you can do is spin if you clank it.
...the manoeuvre was a recovery from the vertical, I think.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,617
Received 293 Likes
on
161 Posts
Which of you was there? Time out please, let's hear what the AAIB conclude? yes?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetBlu: "he is on a very touchy subject at the moment, throwing some wild accusations about a very professional pilot whom is based at my home airfield and one of the nicest guys you could ever meet, who's not in a very comfortable place right now."
Thanks for being honest about that. It speaks volumes. It wouldn't matter to me if he were my own brother, or the Dalai Lama.
Thanks for being honest about that. It speaks volumes. It wouldn't matter to me if he were my own brother, or the Dalai Lama.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step Turn
If almost anyone else except you had said that, my response would have been: 'You wouldn't be so confident if you'd spent decades closely analysing, with relevant expert technical assistance, a wide variety of aviation accident reports from all over the world.'
Or perhaps: 'Surely you should wait to read the final report and any expert analysis/criticism of it before expressing such a confident opinion?'
The AAIB is rightly held in very high regard internationally but, in common with other such agencies, it has also been shown to be wrong.
Genghis
I have great respect for your technical expertise re microlights/light aircraft but, entirely understandably, your knowledge of the law and legal process is very limited.
On this occasion, you have misunderstand the Maule case. (So has Step Turn.)
Jetblu
Gracious of you to accept G's suggestion. Your comment was very funny and not without some foundation.
The AAIB report shall stand on its own, and I would accept its findings with confidence.
Or perhaps: 'Surely you should wait to read the final report and any expert analysis/criticism of it before expressing such a confident opinion?'
The AAIB is rightly held in very high regard internationally but, in common with other such agencies, it has also been shown to be wrong.
Genghis
I have great respect for your technical expertise re microlights/light aircraft but, entirely understandably, your knowledge of the law and legal process is very limited.
On this occasion, you have misunderstand the Maule case. (So has Step Turn.)
Jetblu
You're wasted as a pilot and auxiliary fireman. You should take up a position as a traffic warden and really help your peers out.
I have great respect for your technical expertise re microlights/light aircraft but, entirely understandably, your knowledge of the law and legal process is very limited.
On this occasion, you have misunderstand the Maule case. (So has Step Turn.)
On this occasion, you have misunderstand the Maule case. (So has Step Turn.)
But, could you explain in a bit more detail than I've seen already about the Maule?
My understanding is that the pilot had been working up to this, for his own reasons that some of us might feel were a bit silly, but nonetheless made good sense to him. So, he therefore was able to do this safely (as demonstrated by his not crashing) and without endangering anybody else (as demonstrated by his doing it in the middle of a lake, in his own aeroplane, with nobody else on board). So, a judge decided to not permit the case to be taken forwards as there was no significant evidence that a crime was committed.
If my understanding is incorrect - what am I missing? You could explain rather than simply say that some of us don't understand the topic enough.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 2nd Apr 2016 at 20:28.