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 14th Apr 2016, 14:01
  #881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 924
The CAA don't report on the accident. That is the AAIB's task.

This is the final report of the air show safety reviw, there will be common themes between the two reports, and I suspect some of the new procedures from the CAA report will tie in to parts of the accident report in due course.

Edit to correct 'report' to 'review'
jumpseater is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2016, 21:49
  #882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 63
Posts: 0
We can always count on the Campaign to react 1. After an event. 2. Before they know the facts and 3. In a manner that may have no bearing on the facts. It appears (I don't have the full facts either) the Hunter stoofed due to technique, not a failing in the aircraft itself. Whilst paperwork and "quality" have their place in aviation, it is what the components did on the day that matters. Here they performed as intended; as old and knackered as they were. Therefore, in a cloud of brown smoke and PR, the CAA have fixed a problem that doesn't need fixing and failed to fix the one that does. If nothing else, the CAA are reliably unreliable.

PM
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2016, 11:14
  #883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man View Post
We can always count on the Campaign to react 1. After an event. 2. Before they know the facts and 3. In a manner that may have no bearing on the facts. It appears (I don't have the full facts either) the Hunter stoofed due to technique, not a failing in the aircraft itself. Whilst paperwork and "quality" have their place in aviation, it is what the components did on the day that matters. Here they performed as intended; as old and knackered as they were. Therefore, in a cloud of brown smoke and PR, the CAA have fixed a problem that doesn't need fixing and failed to fix the one that does. If nothing else, the CAA are reliably unreliable.

PM

Think you need to refrain from stating it was a technique not a failing in the aircraft itself. The AAIB have not published a full or even a more detailed report on the aircraft itself. They have merely highlighted some issues with the paperwork and maintenance and also the conduct and procedures of that particular airshow, that need immediate review. The actual report into the aircraft itself or the pilots planned routine has not been published.


As stated before, the aircraft should not have been issued with a PtF due to the out of date seat cartridges and possible engine MPD, regardless that these may not have contributed to the accident. If the paperwork hadn't been fudged then the aircraft wouldn't have been taking part and therefore wouldn't have crashed.


If you look at Rainbow Aviation the aircraft was for sale and clearly stated that a Major service was due Jan2012, presumably this was carried out by the previous MO (as the aircraft wasn't sold until Jul12) then the engine MPD would have expired Jan14 not Dec14 as stated. If the MPD expired Dec14 then the MPD must have been done Jan13 but it was with the new MO at this time, who were not approved to carry out the MPD. So looking at the dates its a bit odd. Same with the cartridges as these presumably were replaced in Jan11 or later (depending on manufacturing dates) as the advert for sale states expiry Jan13. Are these the only things that have been 'overlooked' too.
Hebog is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2016, 14:11
  #884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 146
Thanks for helpful clarification in#883, JS and your observations in #884, PM on the CAA. Many people's summer fun will now be spoiled for nothing whatsoever. But what to do to get these hasty and ill conceived new regs altered? I might try my MP since she is new and seems keen.

(I had a couple of hours in a T7 back in the sixties. Wow. I asked the instructor for guidance on what not to do to break his aircraft. He gave me a look which showed "withering" and "amusing" in equal proportion, and said that there was nothing I could do to damage it - at least, whilst he was still there).

This accident is really sad but the possible consequences are too.

Last edited by Downwind Lander; 15th Apr 2016 at 15:33.
Downwind Lander is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2016, 20:59
  #885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
As a licensed engineer and also ex military engineer whom has exposure to AAES, I totally agree with Hebog's post. I thought guys in this country would not try and pull the same stunts as Thunder City with ZU-BEX and out of date cartridges. Such explosives have a shelf life not due to MB wanting to make money but because they are perishable by their very nature of use. However it seems I was wrong. As an LAE, I do not have the authority to extend anything without approval of a higher authority, that being as high as the OEM or regulator if it is outside the limits of the company exposition.
Alber Ratman is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 09:24
  #886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
@Hebog
The AAIB published a special bulletin in September.
In it they stated that the aircraft appeared to be responding normally to the control inputs from the pilot and no abnormalities have been identified.
They also described the interior cameras recording and gave the speed and altitude at the top of the inverted position.
This is why @Piltdownman made their observations about the lack any apparent failings in the aircraft itself.

The exact phraseology of the AAIB is on page 5 of the pdf link from from this url below
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...nter-t7-g-bxfi
dsc810 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 20:25
  #887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
At some point, CAA may review its policy of requiring active seats for some ex mil jets. It has already decided they can be de-activated for some types.
In civilian hands, my view is they are as likely to cause serious harm as they are to save life. Civilian pilots are also less likely to encounter the same military scenarios requiring ejection - hit my missile for example. However, close formation flying is an example where having a live seat may be of benefit.
Seat design has moved on over the years. The Martin Baker seat in the hunter was called a bang seat. Spinal compression could be expected in a young fit pilot following ejection. Are there any medics out there with a view on what might be the result on the spine of a mid 50s pilot following ejection?
Compare the very upright design of the early Martin Bakers with the more relaxed seats of the harriers in their last variant, with rocket packs.....
there are plenty of very capable civilian aircraft without ejection seat capabilities.
For me it is safer to fly some if these jets with the seats decommissioned.
Arguments over whether the cartridges in question were or were not installed with the knowledge and / or the permission / non objection from the CAA do not advance the discussion of what caused this tragic accident.
D SQDRN 97th IOTC is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 01:07
  #888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,500
I have an L29 type rating. The aircraft I flew had an approved mod to decommission the ejection seats. I had no problem with this as I thought it was entirely appropriate to eliminate the risk of a ground mishap, or danger to rescue personnel.

The fact that it may have reduced the survivability of an accident was an informed one on my part, and one I was willing to take.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 06:28
  #889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
Seems fairly straight-forward to me ?
Not to me it isn't, and given you (nor indeed nobody else previously heckling) have not offered further insight perhaps it isn't that straight-forward.

There were two Go-Pro cameras that filmed the accident (in fact they continue to film post accident) the footage of which has long been seen by the AAIB but according to reports (such as the BBC link below) following the coroner pre-inquest review such footage is subject to restricted access.

Why is that?

Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 08:51
  #890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 63
Posts: 0
Let's say Plod gets the GoPro footage. They will not doubt then go to a few 'experts'. They'll stop when one says, "based on my years of experience, blah, blah... that this was a clear case of criminal negligence and the pilot is totally to blame". Job done, banged to rights. Then no doubt the filthy compo lawyers will use the same evidence and different 'experts' to determine that [insert the name of someone with insurance] was totally at fault and they will walk out happy with the cash. Then the AAIB may give another version - the more likely version, the one with possibly a more nuanced causes - based on facts. But let us not stop there. The CAA have already worked out what has happened because they have shot their load already... (The CAA are unable to work out the difference between what and why).

What a system. A free-for-all farce with too many players. It cheapens the memory of those who have died, has already pointlessly reduced the spectacle of airshows and until we know why this event occurred, has failed to make airshows safer.

PM

ps. Task the CAA with oversight on firework shows and we would only be allowed underwater fireworks.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 10:24
  #891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 67
I had assumed from the interim report published by the AAIB that it was a preliminary report providing the information gathered from various sources and it should be regarded as tentative and is subject to alteration or correction. As further investigation will be carried out to examine the aircraft & the maintenance records to establish the condition of the aircraft before the accident. They were also looking at the operation of the aircraft, organisation of the event re public safety and associated regulatory issues.

Which would explain the following phrase ' the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilots control inputs. To date no abnormal indications have been identified'
As I assume they had not investigated the airframe physically at this stage but only a quick check before a more detailed forensic examination of the controls, engine, airframe and other components is carried out which may take months/years to complete.


Hence why I stated people should refrain from stating the pilot stoofed due to technique, as not all the facts had been gathered or fully investigated at that point.
Hebog is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2016, 01:04
  #892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,917
Originally Posted by Pittsextra View Post
Not to me it isn't, and given you (nor indeed nobody else previously heckling) have not offered further insight perhaps it isn't that straight-forward.

There were two Go-Pro cameras that filmed the accident (in fact they continue to film post accident) the footage of which has long been seen by the AAIB but according to reports (such as the BBC link below) following the coroner pre-inquest review, such footage is subject to restricted access.

Why is that?

Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News

Because that is the law. (See below.)
It is summarised in the first three paragraphs of BBC News report - which you originally linked in post 847 more than two weeks ago.
You quoted an extract from the opening paragraphs and then said:
It is my personal view that filming with a Go-Pro is not done for flight safety and so the various arguments that relate to other recorded aircraft safety media do not apply.
If you had said "should not" then that would have been an opinion with which some might agree and others would not.
Your error lies in "do not".

Whether or not you agree with the relevant law (I do), the AAIB will not and can not disclose unless ordered to do so by a court which has the power to order disclosure.
The law also specifies the conflicting/competing considerations which a Judge must take into account in all such applications before deciding whether or not it is appropriate to order the AAIB to disclose any or all material sought.

Similar restrictions apply in all jurisdictions throughout the developed world. The terminology and procedure vary but the principle remains the same, as does the underlying flight safety reason for the restrictions.

If you genuinely wish to learn more about why there are such restrictions then I recommend that you start with:
  • The Convention on International Civil Aviation. In particular, Annex 13. The Convention has been amended several times since it was adopted in Chicago in December 1944 so you'd need to read the most recent version.
  • The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996.
  • EU Regulation 996/2010 'Investigation and Prevention of Accidents and Incidents in Civil Aviation'.


Some of the comments you made in a later post (878) further confirm a lack of understanding in this area. I tried to explain to you several times in the other Hunter thread but eventually gave up.
I say "genuinely wish to learn" because, unless you are able to put aside your preconceived notions, then reading the documents I've referenced will probably be a waste of time.


You may find that PPRuNers are more likely to take the time to respond to you if you don't accuse those with whom you disagree of "heckling".

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 20th Apr 2016 at 12:44.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2016, 14:53
  #893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
Flying Lawyer

Pittsextra



Quote:
Why is that?
The answer was contained in the opening paragraphs of BBC news report which you originally linked in post 847.
You quoted a part of the report and then said:

Quote:
It is my personal view that filming with a Go-Pro is not done for flight safety and so the various arguments that relate to other recorded aircraft safety media do not apply.
Your error lies in "do not" apply.
If you had said "should not" then that would have been an opinion with which some might agree and others would not.

Whether or not you agree with the relevant law (I do), the AAIB will not and can not disclose unless ordered to do so by a court which has the power to order disclosure.
The law also specifies the conflicting factors which a Judge must take into account before deciding whether or not to order disclosure of material sought. (In all such applications.)

Similar restrictions upon disclosure apply in all jurisdictions in the developed world.
The terminology and procedure vary but the principle remains the same, as does the underlying flight safety reason for the restrictions.

If you genuinely wish to learn more then you should start with:

  • The Convention on International Civil Aviation. In particular, Annex 13. The Convention has been amended several times since it was adopted in Chicago in 1944 so ensure that your read the most recent version.

  • The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996. In particular, Regulation 18.

  • Regulation EU 996/2010 on the Investigation and Prevention of Accidents and Incidents in Civil Aviation. In particular, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 14.
Some of your subsequent comments in post 878 further confirm your lack of understanding of the underlying reasons for the relevant laws. I tried to explain them to you several times in the other Hunter thread but eventually gave up.
I say "genuinely wish to learn" because, unless you are prepared to contemplate the possibility, however unpalatable it may be, that you are currently failing to understand then reading the documents I've referenced will be a waste of time.


You may also find that discussion is more productive if you don't accuse people with whom you disagree of "heckling".
Yep you got me. It is the law.

The irony is that having read Article 14 (which you initially referred me to) that Article has the title "protection of sensitive safety information" and then continues in paragraph 3 that notwithstanding all of paragraphs 1 & 2 records can be disclosed if the administration of justice decides it should be...

I agree my sentence construction was poor and I used the words "do not" when "should not" was the better choice. However actually for all of the pages of legal text there is still a debate to be had AND in fact it is a debate that is likely to happen.

So where does this leave us in terms of aviation safety? Do we want to treat personal Go-Pro cameras in the same way as specific safety related aviation recording devices? Do you believe that Go-Pro camera footage should be covered by the laws you refer me to, and if so how is that protecting aviation safety?

Finally it would seem quite odd and ultimately pointless to have para 1 & 2 of Article 14 if para 3 drives a coach and horses between it, especially because one might well believe that those with the ability to pull the trigger on para.3 are very likely not to have much in the way of an aviation background. Doesn't that then become less to do with aviation safety and more to do with process?

Thanks for the reply and for completeness I didn't suggest you were heckling.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2016, 20:55
  #894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 617
With respect to deactivating ejection seats there are two considerations. The first is if you wish to maintain the capability for a manual bail out via the manual separation mechanism of the ejection seat or by installing a static seat and using a conventional parachute. If so, is there an adequate egress route? Can the canopy be opened or jettisoned to permit the bail out? Is there sufficient space to get out of the cockpit, especially at high speed? If the cockpit access has not been designed for this abandonment case then such an option may not be feasible. Secondly, if it is a single-engine aircraft is the glide threshold speed low enough to permit an off-runway forced landing following an engine failure? For some aircraft such as the Jet Provost the answer may be yes. For high speed swept wing aircraft the answer will probably be no. So, if the glide speed is too high for an off-runway forced landing and a safe egress route for a manual bail-out does not exist then flying with an inhibited ejection seat would, in my opinion, be foolhardy.

There is one ex-UK military ejection seat type of which there are some examples flying on non-UK civilian register with inhibited ejection seats but with pilots wearing a manual parachute. However, this type does not have a canopy jettison system, the canopy cannot be opened in flight and the explosive canopy fracture system was not cleared for in-flight usage in RAF service because the pilot would suffer serious/potentially fatal injuries if it was operated other than as part of the ejection sequence. So how does the pilot bail out manually? And, therefore, in these circumstances why wear a parachute?! Again, my personal opinion is that taking such risks for recreational flying is not justifiable.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 06:56
  #895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,917
Pittsextra

I'll come back to some of your points when I have more time.
In the meantime, please answer the 2 questions below.

The irony is that ..... notwithstanding all of paragraphs 1 & 2, records can be disclosed if the administration of justice decides it should be...
Ironic or not, that is the law.

Questions:
  1. Do you think that the AAIB should be ordered to disclose the Go-Pro footage to the Police?
  2. If Yes, why?

They are not 'legal' questions.
Please answer them clearly and unambiguously.

.

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st Apr 2016 at 07:21.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 07:25
  #896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
Hey good morning - on train so super fast post.

1 - yes
2 - because a) I don't believe there (two cameras) fitment was for flight safety purposes. b) I think the drawn out process that results causes additional stress for victims c) any reference to the footage in any AAIB final report makes it likely that a judgement would be made that footage would be released anyway - otherwise you'd have some curious situation where you could read about the footage but not see it. d) the footage in itself does not prejudice the pilot it merely gives added colour to the wider event, therefore given this is single pilot aircraft the pilot is considered/responsible - who is able to complete the narrative - or not. e) the release of the media would not seem to me an event that would discourage others using Go-Pro cameras capturing their GA flying activities f) other than the letter of law I have not heard a reason why the release of the film damages either this pilots integrity or the case of wider aviation safety g) the process is distractional to those involved
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 10:39
  #897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 601
...And if I may participate too, perhaps the video available to the AAIB shows something which would reflect favourably upon the pilot of the Hunter, and reduce or pre-empt the police interest in the case. It could be though of as "objective" by all interested parties.
9 lives is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 10:45
  #898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Squalor
Posts: 108
...so you want to make public the cockpit view of an aircraft diving into a crowd?
Wetstart Dryrun is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 14:39
  #899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 601
There are a lot of photos, and I presume videos, which are provided as "evidence" to aid an official investigation which never come to public view. They serve the investigative purpose without ever being available to more sensitive viewers, who have no real need to view. But, I make no assertion in respect of this event, that is just my personal experience with other investigations with which I have been involved.
9 lives is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 14:57
  #900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 59
Posts: 539
This is my first post on this long-running thread....


Firstly, I think it would be prurient for the GoPro footage be released.


I still have images, nearly 30 years later, of the horrendous Frecce Tricolori crash at Ramstein and the crash of an Su-27 at an air show in Ukraine in 2002 when it crashed into the crowd and I do not need to see fresh film of another accident to allow my imagination to "see" what happened at Shoreham. What is more I know that if this film was released it would go viral straightaway and be across the internet for all to see......


No flight safety benefit is likely to come from that and I would far prefer to wait for an official report from the appropriate authorities, the CAA and AAIB. Those with other agendas, including journos, trolls and arm-chair experts will have to be patient; I am sure they will be able to rest assured in the certainty that personal-injury lawyers will be representing the families of the deceased (may the RIP) and those that were injured are already on to the case.


Andy Hill, like every other pilot I know, took off on that fateful day with every intention of going "home" after work. The same is true also for those that were killed and injured. It was not deliberate or planned and he came with a whisker of being killed himself - such is the nature with an accident - which is what this is. Sure there will be lessons to be learned but equally even criminals enjoy a presumption of innocence at law until after a Court judgement of guilty as charged....


Yes, I know, some totally innocent good people died as a result of this accident but sometimes $hit happens.....whether it be a Glasgow bin-lorry accident or the helicopter crash that killed other perfectly innocent people in the Clutha Vaults bar in 2013. All of this is tragic for the people affected but nothing we do in life is totally risk-free and it would be folly to think that more restrictions or bans will completely remove the risk of another accident. As things stand the odds against such an accident happening again I think are good enough for most people not to be deterred from going to an air show and for those living nearby not to start selling-up.


Finally, it would be considerate I think to spare a thought to what AH must be going through. Survivor's guilt can be hard to live with......and in saying that I would like to say I have no connection with AH or his family and have never met him.


MB
Madbob is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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