As a long-retired Naval pilot I am 100% in agreement with Step Turn.

A display, Air Day, Air Show (or whatever) is probably fairly high stress for those controlling it from the Tower. But, as Step Turn states, for the pilot it should be high precision, NOT high stress.

I've flown in displays so do speak from some limited, ancient experience.

Mike

Just also correcting Hebog's post slightly.

Some years ago I was defence expert witness for an LAA member who crashed his Rans S6 on approach at a fly-in. He injured a couple of bystanders quite badly, and was prosecuted (CAA in the lead IIRC) in a criminal court for "reckless negligence". He was found not guilty - as it wasn't proven "beyond reasonable doubt".

The injured people then sued him in a civil court for damages related to their injuries and property damage in the crash. I don't know for sure the outcome of that, but believe that he probably had to pay out quite a substantial sum of money, as this civil court only required proof "on the balance of probabilities" - which is a much lower standard of proof.


In this chaps case, the whole thing affected his life for years.

I hope not, as I don't for a moment believe that the Hunter pilot deliberately acted recklessly, and sincerely hope that the Hunter was extremely well insured for 3rd party compensation - but it's not unrealistic to predict that something similar may happen here.

G

As I become an adult, I think about this more ('cause I really did not give it enough thought for the first 40 years of my flying). I now find I'm asking myself "How badly do I really want to do X in the plane?". Often the answer comes back "Not so much." Particularly when there is an audience. When I flight test something, I take it out of sight, as best I can.

Air displays are an important part of the maintenance of public enthusiasm for aviation, so a favourable outcome is vital. I enjoy going to air displays where I can see some nice easy flybys of the real showpiece aircraft.

I flew airdisplays at airshows all over Europe for eight years.

The rules were clear and every show was preceded by safety meetings that lasted for sometimes more than an hour.

All of our routine was practised to the point boredom was more likely than stress.

If it does finish up in a civil case I wonder what the court will make of the fact that most of the casualties were viewing from a position south of the road and between two police notices saying no viewing from here?

I thought most were travelling along the road, unconnected to the air display.

Some thoughts. At some point, given the fatalities and the world becoming more litigious not less, this is going to be in a civil court. Be that the pilot, operator, organiser or regulator, depending upon the cause and underlying factors.

Of course we assume that there is only one investigation when clearly there will be investigation by the insurer and the state. Neither of whom need to be interested in ICAO Annex 13.

The AAIB report is of great importance because for many victims it maybe the only thing that gives them some visibility as to what has happened. One thing to remember with Rogers v Hoyle is that ultimately the prosecutions case collapsed. In fact arguably the biggest issue for the use of AAIB reports in court is that, due to the nature of our system where one party wins the other looses, the very credibility of the AAIB gets challenged.

Therefore its the AAIB that have much to loose and whilst you might not think a state accident investigator has a need for PR what happens to them if (for example) opinion is drawn from other sources? After all if you take the German Wings Airbus that crashed in the Alps it was not the BEA that released the cockpit being locked information.

For the AAIB the biggest challenge I see is communication that suits 2015 and all the desire for information. Does that mean binning reports on some accidents? After all where someone flies their PA28 into a hill in fog or running out of fuel, forgot to use carb heat with the pilot only being lost - does chapter and verse on this really do anything to promote flight safety??

Balanced of course with some quite serious events taking circa 2 years to report on - Glasgow for example.

John, with the greatest of respect you seem to be forgetting those who were actually using the road as a byway, and that there were no diversions or signs warning them that they faced potential danger for doing so!:ugh:

I was told by one of the airshow organisers that ony four of the fatalities were in cars.

I have no idea if that is correct.

Just because the person involved was 'one of ours' does not mean that he has immunity from blame if he was acting in a reckless manner.

Note that I said 'if'.

I am not implying that he was. At the moment there seems to be no indication that a fault on the aircraft may not have caused the accident. However a loop commencing at low height in any aircraft does leave little room for error and may not be considered a wise choice for a public display.

For comparison in another field of leisure activity there are two fatal ski accidents prosecutions - basically skiing in a totally reckless way.
One is in 2001 in the USA and the other in 2009 in Austria
Both were found guilty.
The Austria charge was one of involuntary manslaughter and in the USA reckless manslaughter - terms which I think we do not use in the UK.

Nearest equivalent charge I know of in the UK is in fatal car accidents where the charge if applied/prosecuted is a very motoring related specific one of causing death by dangerous driving.

Courts etc
 

This case is highly unlikely to go anywhere near a Civil Court (the High Court in this Country). This is because the owner of an aircraft is strictly liable for injuries caused on the ground by their aircraft. For those really interested, look at Section 76 (2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Strictly liable means no proof of negligence needed.

An admission of civil liability has already been obtained by some of the families from the owner, and its insurers.

The interesting just culture question will be where the Criminal Investigation leads.

There's a list here

Video: Who are the Shoreham Air Show victims? Everything we know about plane crash - Telegraph

In Cars: 5
On Motorcycle: 1
On bicycles: 2
Spectating: 3

In my opinion, airshow accidents are highly regrettable, but also will occur for as long as we have airshows. Given that, to a large extent the major questions should be far less about the conduct of the Hunter pilot, and far more about the assumptions and planning which led to that location as a display line.

G

.... and remember, of course, that most accidents occur in the home. By encouraging tens of thousands of people to gather at an air show, these people will not be cutting themselves with vegetable knives, burning themselves on hot saucepans and tripping over vacuum cleaner cables.

Its all about probability and statistics.

Thank you very much Genghis.

Really glad to have my info corrected.

JF

Bit blasé that - collateral damage?

Airshow accidents could be greatly reduced if the pilots displaying performed no aerobatics that had any risk i.e. used the display to 'display' rather than show off.

Few people watching appreciate the difficulty levels of some of the aerobatic manoeuvres thus they are best avoided.

A legitimate viewpoint ff.

However, well above that, I think that we should get back to a situation where the only lives risked are those of knowing and knowledgeable participants - and never those of spectators and unknowing passers by. That has to be the highest priority.

After that - well Old Warden for example is largely run on the basis you describe, and the last airshow I went to there was sold out. So there is room for that - on the other hand I am not sure that either the pilots or spectators of the Red Arrows or Blades want to see an end to aerobatics, and the pilots at least accept and understand the risks.

G

But for "any risk" I couldn't agree more. The answer does not lie in restricting Hunters and the like to mere flybys at airshows. A practical solution is simply to ban downward vertical manoeuvres with low pull-outs (in high-inertia jets) and the crowd won't even notice. Watching a nicely executed half-cuban, with one or two aileron rolls in the downline, is far nicer than staring into the hole of a doughnut ... and it is much safer.

Swisscheese #639
 

Can you confirm where you have heard the owners and insurers have agreed it being their fault and started making payments.




I would have thought the insurers would have waited until the AAIB report as it may not be the owners insurance that needs to pay out or will they make a counter claim in the civil courts on the operators, maintenance organisation or airshow organisers if it is determined they have been negligent in their duties. Also if this was the case of negligent could it then be a classified as corporate manslaughter and possibly gross negligence manslaughter both of which are dealt with by the courts. I personally could possibly see both a criminal and civil cases in court.
I am also curious as to why Hunters have been grounded full stop. Didn't do this with any other aircraft even the Gnats. As far as I can make out all the Hunters have had permits issued by the same company, or is this just coincidence?

""""""For the average spectator the days of viewing aerobatics are long gone. Time was when you could see a small aircraft doing precision aerobatics within the airfield, without going outside the perimeter. Or some 'crazy flying'. Or that 'shooting the bottles' stunt. Perhaps a nice display of energy management in a Chippie.""""


Suggest you go along to The Moth Club annual rally at Woburn, third w/e in August.


""""""Military aircraft are for fighting wars with. They are not designed for civil use and do not have the same safety margins as civil airliners. They should not be used for aerobatic displays.""""""


Rather a sweeping statement, I would submit. Some are used for warfare. Many are used for training purposes, the Hawk springs to mind.