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 3rd Mar 2017, 10:29
  #1081 (permalink)  
Dep Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,409
I've seen where you've placed that thread and you need to know it will have a life of a few days there before being moved here long term.

R+N for initial exposure and then over here. Human behaviour is habitual and many will think only of joining in on the forum and thread they've usually gone to. If that's happening we'll consider a brief pause on the two main threads.

PPRuNe Towers is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 10:54
  #1082 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,555
I'm happy for you to relocate it where you think best.

I'm sure the report is worthy of its own thread, and will pick up steam quickly.

airpolice is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 19:31
  #1083 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 55
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post
Is the statement to announce they have read the report and for further clarification the boys in blue will now renew their invite for the boys in the military forum to attend another friendly little chat over a cup of tea at the local nick. As mentioned by Arfur Dent. "some of us from the 'Military " site have been invited to talk to Sussex Police " quote from Arfur Dent.
My guess is that Sussex police as an interested party have already seen the report.
I didn't have any expectations about the content of any announcement from Sussex Police, only that there would be one.


Sussex Police has received the final report from the Air Accident Investigation Branch into the Shoreham air crash and will begin looking at the report in detail with our independent experts.

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz said: "We continue to keep the families of those who lost their lives updated as we progress with our investigation. We have been waiting some time for this report and it will take us some time to review. Our progress has been dependent on this final report and as a result of the ruling in the High Court, much of the material contained in it has not been seen by the investigation team until now. We hope to do everything we can to submit a file of material to the CPS in advance of the pre-inquest review on June 20.

"As we have said before, this is an extraordinarily complex investigation, but we remain committed to finding answers for the families and friends of those who died."
dastocks is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2017, 23:12
  #1084 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,213

Fortunately in the U.K. To find someone guilty of a criminal offence you have to prove intent or negligence and a simple mistake is not negligence as the pilot did not eject from the aircraft and attempted to recover the situation this would indicate a mistake on entry to the loop rather than intentional or wreckless negligence. It should also be remembered that the AAIB report can't under international law be used to prosecute the pilot and the police have to collect their own evidence, another thing that has to be considered is if prosecution is in the public interest, the huge costs involved in bringing the case and the questionable chance of success along with the fact the pilot clearly did not intend to crash the aircraft and is not likely to re-offend are all going to be factors the CPS will consider before bringing this to court.

It must also be remembered that some of the victims deliberately placed themselfs in a more hazardous position to watch the show for free and so presumably excepted the additional risk, I do feel very sorry for those victims who just happened to be passing by in the course of normal daily life unconnected with the airshow who could not have known the risks posed by the show and so were not in a position to deicide to or not to take the risk of being in the area at the time.
A and C is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 09:18
  #1085 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66

Most were in cars waiting at lights.
Your view of the law is curious, to say the least.
The public interest question has been answered elsewhere.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 13:58
  #1086 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
A and C...I have removed my post because I am not qualified to comment.

If I have any point to make it is that ex military hardware needs more strict controls.

Aerobatics should not be allowed with old ex mil airframes.
Mike Flynn is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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