Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra

Yet we aren't done with flight safety yet. ………….. etc, etc.

Relevant information will be provided in the accident report. The AAIB's sole objective (in common with equivalent bodies around the world) is the prevention of future aviation accidents and incidents. That is why it makes safety recommendations.
Reports include, to the extent that it is possible to do so, the AAIB's findings concerning the cause(s) and contributory cause(s) of accidents/incidents.
'Causes' in this context means actions, omissions, events, conditions, or a combination thereof, which led to an accident or incident.

Could you expand on the rational vis the Go-Pro we are discussing here? See above for an example as to why understanding the video might be useful to flight safety above.

I could but I won't. My posts in both threads have been, and will continue to be, general.
I will not express opinions about the Shoreham matter.

For the reasons given in my previous answer, I do not accept that your 'flight safety' argument is valid. The AAIB will issue a Report as soon as it is in a position to do so. Accuracy is more important than speed.
Further, given the nature of your previous comments in both threads, I also have doubts (to say the least) about whether that is actually the reason you are in favour of disclosure.

so a debate is healthy?

If you mean a debate about AAIB disclosure generally and/or the use of AAIB reports for a purpose for which they are not intended, yes. But not, in my view, in a thread relating to a current investigation.

In your example of the Moth previously .....

I did not give it as an example. I referred (in the other Hunter thread) to an important Court of Appeal decision of legal principle regarding the use of AAIB reports in civil proceedings. It was decision with far-reaching implications. The civil proceedings which ultimately led to that decision happened to begin with the crash of a Tiger Moth.

You continue, whether intentionally or innocently, to confuse two separate issues.

I still don't see ……..

So it appears.
I repeat what I said in post 1504 of the other thread when, after one final attempt, I gave up trying to explain it to you:

I don't wish to appear discourteous but I see no point in continuing exchanges with you. I have explained the implications of the decision as simply as I can. This post is my final attempt. If you are still unable to understand, so be it.

There's none so blind as those who will not see. (Old proverb.)

.

[Pilot DAR]

In trying to take an objective look at the discussion here, it appears that some "probing of principles" is beginning to repeat itself. That's not to say that the probing has or lacks merit, but it is beginning to lack originality. There seems to be a fair amount of asked and answered" now - thank you to those who have provided patient answers, perhaps more than once. When the AAIB report is issued, there will be lots to discuss, based upon objective report content. I look forward to an informed discussion then.

In the mean time, have we any new themes? Or might this topic take a voluntary relax? Thoughts on this welcomed....

[treadigraph]

Pilot DAR, I agree completely, a rest until the final AAIB report is published would be a good thing.


Thank you to Flying Lawyer, Lomcevak, et al, for their excellent measured and informed responses on both threads.

[Pittsextra]

FL - for some reason some posts have been deleted, one of which you quote and the context of which is clear from that post.

So when you say:-

Further, given the nature of your previous comments in both threads, I also have doubts (to say the least) about whether that is actually the reason you are in favour of disclosure.

Care to explain what my motives are? What element of what I've posted on this thread or similar has been so far away from what subsequently gets established? I might say that had anyone posted what was the press release from BADA and Air Pilots a few months ago would have been similarly flamed, yet for some reason criticism from others is wrong.

and

I could but I won't. My posts in both threads have been, and will continue to be, general.
I will not express opinions about the Shoreham matter.

Except you wanted me to comment upon the specific matter in a post that got deleted, my reply was deleted yet you still quote part of that post... hmm.

There's none so blind as those who will not see. (Old proverb.)

Indeed.

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra

for some reason some posts have been deleted, one of which you quote and the context of which is clear from that post.

I don't understand what you mean.
Where have I quoted from a post of yours that has been deleted?

With one exception (the last), every quote in my response to you in post 908 comes from your post 905.
Your post 905 is still visible to me. Can you not see it?
The last quote was what I said in the main Hunter thread when I eventually gave up responding to you. ie I was quoting myself, not you.

Care to explain what my motives are?

I'll keep my suspicions to myself.

What element of what I've posted on this thread or similar has been so far away from what subsequently gets established?

If you mean concerning the crash then I can't comment because I stopped reading your various opinions/theories some time ago.

My responses to you have not related to the crash but to AAIB accident investigation procedures, the law restricting disclosure of material obtained by the AAIB, the use of accident reports for a purpose for which they are not intended and (in the main thread) trying unsuccessfully to explain the significance of an important Court of Appeal decision to you. Almost everything you've said about those aspects has been wrong.

The press release from BADA/the Air Pilots was discussed in the main thread. If it was also discussed here, then I missed it.

Except you wanted me to comment upon the specific matter in a post that got deleted, my reply was deleted yet you still quote part of that post... hmm.

I was interested to know your views.
My post is still there, as is your reply. Posts 897 & 898.
Can you not see them?
Perhaps a browser problem?
Where have I quoted from your reply?

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra
Further to my comment in my post last night:

If you mean concerning the crash then I can't comment because I stopped reading your various opinions/theories some time ago.

I should have added that I have quickly scanned some others since then, when prompted by a post from someone with relevant expertise responding to some of your opinions/theories. I have done so in order to understand - and learn from - the exchanges.


Just out of curiosity, I looked this morning to see how many times you have posted your opinions relating to the Shoreham crash. (A quick exercise - it's a facility available under every poster's profile.) The total was even more than I thought - I stopped counting at 100!
In stark contrast, those with relevant expertise have posted only a small fraction of that number. Worth reflecting upon?

You cannot fail to have noticed that you irritated people in the Hunter thread in the Mil Forum - which ceased to be active some time ago pending further information from the AAIB. Of course there will be differences of opinion in any discussion but, in your case, a recurring complaint/criticism was that you refused to listen even when those with relevant expertise (often professional expertise in that forum) took the time to explain points to you.

You have occasionally appeared to acknowledge that your posts irritate people. Have you considered the possibility that the blame may lie with you? That your approach and attitude might be the cause?
Like you, I am a PPL. Over the years, I have often asked questions in various PPRuNe forums in order to learn from those with relevant expertise. In stark contrast, I have without exception received courteous and helpful responses. So have numerous others.

Similarly, over the years I have explained many matters in areas where I have expertise. I can't say 'never' because I've been posting for about 15 years, but I can't remember encountering anyone so resistant to reconsidering their opinions in such circumstances. You are, of course, entitled to reject what I say about matters where I have expertise and decades of experience. I'm content for readers to decide for themselves which source they regard as the more informed and reliable.

[Pilot DAR]

Whoa fellows! I see the passion, but it's drifting off topic here. There is a lot of expertise, and experience, and we appreciate that, but how about we appreciate it on topic.

I've started another thread for that topic, and invite you there with your passion and wisdom. May we please rest this thread until some on topic discussion of new relevant information is possible?

[Pittsextra]

FL - Perhaps we can debate camera element on the other thread and park this one. You are right I think the deleted post view was from a different computer - not sure why - so my apologies there as it looked odd.

but, in your case, a recurring complaint/criticism was that you refused to listen even when those with relevant expertise (often professional expertise in that forum) took the time to explain points to you.

You have occasionally appeared to acknowledge that your posts irritate people. Have you considered the possibility that the blame may lie with you? That your approach and attitude might be the cause?

To reply however to this type of stuff, if I may.

Of the many posts some seem to be arguing for the simple sake of it and yes I have been guilty of that - but frankly I think in the Mil forum we had 5 pages of back and forth over if what we had seen was a 1/4 clover.

I think we might be more comfortable calling it that now. I also suggested that these things shouldn't be a mystery - although we now know that the reason the display director couldn't give that colour earlier was that he had no idea what the display sequence was.

I seem to also recall another exchange with some APG63? where he suggested that there was no criticism from the AAIB about the CAA. Once again I think we may have more clarity on that now.

In fact your own view on the CAA more relaxed and then we had this BADA/Air Pilots statement...

I disagreed with you about your view about the meeting at the RAeS and after we kicked that around for a while you later suggested that opinion was indeed divided on the release of certain information.

Then we have had all this "have you flown a Hunter? flown a jet? You post about accidents, what are your motivations, they are not about flight safety... etc etc.

Except I'm not sure what is causing so much stress. I suggested about 18 months ago that CHC were in a bad spot and someone ranted that he'd been at a facility of theirs at the time and they all had new uniforms so that meant all was well and I was an idiot...

On another thread I got flamed for mentioning about a late CAA review of IFR flying outside controlled airspace which they themselves set an 1st Oct 2015 date for publication. Have you seen that yet?

And so it goes on.

In the later stages of this thread you asked me if and why about the release of the Go-Pro footage, nothing in that reply was ambiguous, nothing in that reply needed to relate to Chicago conventions (because it was my opinion that you asked for) and nothing in that reply needed suggestion that I didn't listen. In fact even having given you my own 7 reasons (that you asked for) you then suggest that you doubt those are my real reasons!?

Sure you will have a far superior knowledge of the law and how that relates to aviation. Yet the law isn't going to give us the reason for why this aircraft crashed, nor can it justify the poor process(s) that have so far been uncovered and questioning things that seem to be odd is no bad thing. Happy to wait for the final report and readers will decide what has been informed/reliable.

[Flying Lawyer]

I disagree with many of your wide-ranging assertions but don't think any useful purpose would be served by prolonging this exchange.

Yet the law isn't going to give us the reason for why this aircraft crashed

I agree.
I have never suggested otherwise.

[Pilot DAR]

And that..... is not the last word on this topic, but is the beginning of an intermission, pending new public information being presented.

[Capot]

The CAA has just issued its Follow-up Action on Occurrence Report, on the Shoreham accident, which seems to me to be generally laudable, although experts in air displays may quibble with some of it, I don't know.

The last paragraph gives me a lot of hope for the future, because it seems that simple common-sense has taken charge;

.... The CAA does not believe that a safety target for UK civil display flying is appropriate.

Air display flying carries inherent risks. The purpose of the CAA’s comprehensive review of UK civil air displays has been to assess whether it is possible to minimise further the risks at and around civil air displays in the UK. The series of improvements that the CAA has put in place as a result of its review of UK civil air displays will further enhance public safety.

[Mike Flynn]

I have only now waded in to this discussion but the public perception is that those flying ex military war birds or wealthy boys toys need to be controlled.

Flying the sort of hardware involved in this accident is way beyond the normal risk assessment of a light aircraft however it almost comes in to that area in terms of pilot and airframe capability.

Joe Bloggs can go out an buy an ex military aircraft and fly it on a PPL with little or no restriction.

Despite the high value of these airframes and their display capabilites there appears in recent accidents to be a lack of control risk and experience.

So where does this leave innocent people on the ground?

I am all for keeping these airframes flying but see little purpose in anything more than a low level safe flypast.

[wiggy]

Joe Bloggs can go out an buy an ex military aircraft and fly it on a PPL with little or no restriction.

Despite the high value of these airframes and their display capabilites there appears in recent accidents to be a lack of control risk and experience.

The above may or may not be relevant to the accident that is the subject of this thread, we will see, but since you have posted this comment on the Shoreham thread, rather than elsewhere, can I take it you are aware of the Shoreham accident pilot's background, experience level and licence held?

[Genghis the Engineer]

There are two aspects to airshow safety management.

(1) Minimising the risk of a crash.

(2) Ensuring that if that crash ever does happen, it does not affect anybody on the ground.

This is built around the understanding that airshow pilots are knowing participants who understand and accept the risks involved in what they're going.


Historically, and rightly in most people's opinions, (1) is minimised but can't be eliminated completely. (2) Should be eliminated completely, as no "innocent bystander" should be subject to risk of loss of life due to an activity they have no understanding of or control over.

Where Shoreham went horribly wrong, is that (2) failed. NOT that there was a crash - albeit that there are clearly lessons to be learned from it, but there have been crashes before and the odds are that there will be crashes again. But virtually all of those other crashes did not kill uninformed bystanders.

In many ways it reads to me that the failing at Shoreham was not because the rules were lax, but that the existing rules weren't applied as fully as they should have been. However, it also caused a review of everything, and in the CAA's perception, gaps were identified and closed; others may disagree with the detail of the perception, but I don't think that anybody's disagreeing that Shoreham should have been prevented by some aspect of better airshow management.

A high energy show at low level in a vintage warbird is a very thrilling thing to watch, in part because of the risky nature of the activity. That should be an acceptable activity, but only where the pilot's is the only life at risk when doing it.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

Genghis

(2) Should be eliminated completely …………..

Short of abandoning air shows, I'm not convinced it can be.
Even a series of boring s&l flypasts would not be entirely without risk.

I don't think that anybody's disagreeing that Shoreham should have been prevented by some aspect of better airshow management.

Some people consider it wiser - and fairer to individuals who were concerned in the organising/management at Shoreham - to wait until all the facts are known before expressing their opinions on the internet.

[Genghis the Engineer]

(2) Should, not must - for the reasons you say. It should certainly be the aspiration.

Regarding airshow management - that is certainly the conclusion of the second interim report by AAIB, and I've not heard anybody make any serious criticisms of that report. That was the basis for my statement - although I certainly mean management in the widest possible sense, not any particular individual(s).

G

[118.9]

Good posts Genghis! Yet I am still uneasy that a key point is being missed somewhere. We know from CAP 403 that risk assessment uses the formula Risk = severity of risk x likelihood of occurrence.
Severity, in the event of a crash, runs from potential minor injury (score 1) to multiple deaths (5). Likelihood runs from highly unlikely (1) through possible (3) to highly likely (5). So using CAA's example scenario where a crash could cause 'bystander' casualties, you might have severity at 5 x likelihood at 1 = 5. But if you close a road where non-paying guests might be gathered, you may mitigate the risk down to 2 (very low risk).
Yet, although the pilot's DA must have the box ticked recommending 'loops and barrel rolls in ex-military aircraft' signed off by the examiner, the risk assessment is benign here. I argue that the the risk-likelihood of downward vertical manoeuvres in high inertia jets should be rated as at least possible, especially if the entry height is low, and there are plenty of sad examples around the world to back this up.
If the risk cannot be mitigated sufficiently, then remove the manoeuvre from the sequence.

[9 lives]

The recent report reminds me of the expectation that responsible participants in an event, will apply there best thinking to mitigate negative outcome. The investigation into the fatal fire in Apollo 1 included the concept of "failure of imagination". Witnesses being interviewed stated that the accident was a failure of imagination - they did not think far enough outside the core of what they were doing to imagine the possible bad outcomes. They were qualified and able to think [imagine] that, just did not.

As aviation professionals, it is our responsibility to think as far ahead and wide as our minds allow, as to what occurrence, or combination of events could come together to cause bad - and then act to prevent, or at least mitigate that. Every now and again, events occur in society, which in hind sight, could have been reasonably imagined, and at least mitigated. Such events serve to remind we aviation professionals to do better. This was such an event.

[Genghis the Engineer]

118.9 - thanks.

On the specifics of risk assessment, this phrase jumped out at me in the AAIB second interim report:-

The risk assessment for the 2015 Shoreham Airshow did not show the range of hazards presented by different display aircraft that formed the display and did not consider specifically where the hazards would occur or who would be exposed to them. There was no evidence of an attempt to consider either a hierarchy of protection or control.

The discussion expands then at great length, but basically what it says is that a generic risk assessment was used at Shoreham, that didn't take detailed account of the nature of the aeroplanes and manoeuvres in the display.

G

[dsc810]

Closing roads can have other consequences when large amounts of traffic is then sent on less suitable routes.

Following this crash a diversion was set up as the road was closed
Three days later a fatality occurred on the diversion route.
Here is one link to the "incident".
Man killed in crash on Shoreham diversion road | UK | News | Daily Express