Think everyone should read the report on the crash in the USA. It is clear from this report that there was a lot of 'non-compliance' , complacency and lack of oversight involved from everyone. http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...0-4dde27bccefb

I think that there is a big difference between access to video evidence or wreckage - those ultimately are bland facts. Witness statements are different, in that they contain elements of selection, interpretation and opinion, and have been given with an understanding of the use that will be made of them.

G

I assume one consequence might be people will now think twice about having their own recording devices (such as go-pro's) installed/used in flight?

The judges were very clear that their ruling did not create a precident for the release of any data from factory installed/mandatory video recording devices.

Why are we surprised at the release of the Go-Pro footage? Regardless of the utility of the footage it would surely be very bizarre if personal media was restricted when its found on an aircraft that has crashed but not in (for example) a motorbike or car. In any event haven't we seen the release of similar footage before - RAF Chinook, Catterick?

TBH I'm not sure anyone is surprised...

Read the thread...

Greater clarity is required over the classification of personal recorded media such that it doesn't require the involvement of the High Court. If the DoT are not surprised that access has been granted to so called 'Go-Pro' footage why on earth defend that element?

I am presuming the police already of the amateur footage taken by the many spotters watching the show. Therefore the amateur footage taken from inside the aircraft has to be deemed as the effectively the same and was not installed by the manufacturer/legal requirement for safety reasons. Hence why they have agreed to its release.




As the AAIB have completed their investigation and are now finalising the report, which I hope for the sake of all those involved isn't too much longer in being made public. However, there are a great many people/organisations/groups that need to check the factual information before it is made public so this make take a few more months.

So - will the police 'go it alone now'?

Surely the camera on board the Hunter is no different to the camera in this story.

A34 crash lorry driver jailed for killing family while on phone

It is but the big difference is that the police in the case of air accidents do not have access to it whilst in road accidents they do. They have to ask the AAIB for the item but the agreement between the AAIB and the police/CPS is that they are not permitted to have it and must ask a crown court for it.


This is where I think a review of sharing info needs to be addressed. The police investigation has been delayed because of red tape. I agree with the earlier poster who is happy to provide such info and hence why I do not see why anyone involved would not have provided the police a copy of the transcript of their question and answer session with the AAIB.


The outcome of aircraft inspections and testing should be made available to the police, at the earliest opportunity, as this is a major consideration too. There could be other factors that they need to consider, after all it is an old aircraft and like old cars probably has some funny quirks and like anything mechanical things can go wrong. Therefore, the police have only been able to follow one lead which is the pilot at this stage.


Still no lift of the ban regarding Hunters flying by the CAA, all they had to do was just ensure that the authorisation for a Hunter pilot was more hours on type, more experience of fast jets and regular checks with still the proviso to disallow display flying or low level flying, if the sole issue was the pilots experience and capability. Although the new issue with engines could stop them anyway if they haven't been stored correctly.

I can't vouch for recency issues, if indeed there are any, or comment on AH's flying of the Hunter or comment on Shoreham but if it's pure experience and capability that's worrying you I'd point out AH certainly was/is in general regarded as a highly capable pilot with a fair amount of fast jet experience on a demanding FJ type....

I'd agree that might certainly been of relevance to the Gnat accident, but in the Shoreham case you'll need to define "more experience of fast jets...", as in more than who? AH? What are you suggesting as a minimum?

Quote from Wiggy :

"...but in the Shoreham case you'll need to define "more experience of fast jets...", as in more than who? AH? What are you suggesting as a minimum?"

The case in question is a public display of a vintage military jet fighter. I would have thought the purpose of its display routine should have been a demonstration of its combat role within it`s designed performance envelope and not the pilot`s skills nor the aircraft`s aerobatic manoeuvring capabilities. The sort of pilot required for the role would be best suited to a serving military pilot current on type. Consider Farnborough and Le Bourget air shows. All high performance military fast jets are demonstrated by serving military or test pilots. Not airline pilots who do a bit of aeros and things on the side.
Accordingly in my view it is not something to be measured by number of hours, it is more a question of what you do for a living. If you spend every day sitting, straight and level in a comfy chair and not worrying about things like G Lock, then should you strap yourself in a F16 and thrill the crowds.

That is my idea of the minimum when it comes to demonstrating fighter jets. Different kettle of fish to competition aerobatics in little Pitts Specials and all manner of single piston jobs, I`d have thought.

Chronus

I'm sure you are aware that you can't just whistle up a "serving military pilot current on type" since they don't grow on trees :ooh:.... especially in the UK these days.

By demanding the services of a current military FJ pilot willing to volunteer to spend some of their precious spare time practising and displaying the likes of the Hunter or Gnat you would very much reducing the pool of those available to perfom such as task ....now whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, well it's your call/the authorities call...we will see.

In any event the records show that sadly whilst being a current military fast jet (FJ) pilot might give you an edge over non FJ types it certainly doesn't make you immune from accidents... I can name (but I won't) several former FJ colleagues who perished display flying, or practising for displays. A couple were very much current on FJs at the time of their accidents and crashed on the military type they were operational and current on, and at least one other of my other colleagues was killed displaying a vintage type...

I was not querying this particular pilots credentials and capabilities, although others have previously. I was just asking why the CAA slapped the ban on flying Hunters in the 1st place and why it hasn't as yet been removed.

Hebog perhaps they too are waiting for the verdict from AAIB .

Just confused about why as I can see no logical reason by the CAA at this stage. It can't be because of age or all other 'vintage' aircraft would be grounded too. It can't be type or all other ex-military fast jets would be grounded too. As previously stated if it was pilot they only had to revoke his licence. The airshows have been over-hauled with new rules and procedures etc. So this makes me think they are not happy with the make of aircraft for some reason. After all they didn't wait for the CAA report on the Gnat did they.

Hebog, I would suggest the RAS publication of 8 March 2016 gives a valuable insight into the question you have raised. It can be accessed at:

Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Dogfight over UK airshows intensifies

My question is, what price for nostalgia.

have we thought it might not be the jet but currency on the same??

In my youth, I was an immense airshow enthusiast. I attended all kinds, from the grass roots fly ins, to Farnborough and Paris. The more I came to understand the range of approach to the piloting during the displays, the more I realized that at the fringes, some types of piloting included risk out of proportion to benefit. Some pilots were really trying hard. On the surface, trying hard seems great, but it is possible to try too hard, and increase risk, where the possible benefit is not there to balance it - it is just an airshow! If an aircraft has to maneuver close to the ground, over a crowd, for life saving, our society has a higher tolerance for risk (like fire bombers low over town for harbour water pick ups, or an air ambulance landing in an intersection). But for nothing more than simple entertainment value, risks must be minimized. During the Farnborough Airshow, as one example, aircraft are being displayed to promote large sales. okay a very slight reason to accept greater risk, but really not much.

I was a jump seat passenger onboard an aircraft during the Farnborough flying display decades back. The immensely skilled pilot (a retired Red Arrows team leader) was giving the display his all, I was a qualified witness, there in the cockpit. Two days later, that aircraft was destroyed doing that same routine. Happily, injuries were minor, but there had been huge potential for things to be much worse, noting that there had been considerable debris damage behind the standing crowd. I wonder if they understood the risk they were taking standing at the display line fence.

One of my mentors and a retired airshow performer used to tell me: "No one ever died flying a normal circuit". Though I'm not certain this is factual, I get his point. I think that we the aviation industry must educate our audience that their expecting magnificent displays of low altitude maneuvering may be asking too much. They should be pleased to attend an airshow, and watch aircraft fly, where there remains (by either pilot discipline, or regulation) a suitable Ooops zone between the maneuvering aircraft, (including its projected path) and anyone. If they will need telephoto lenses, or binoculars, so be it.

Doing that does not rule out well planned low passes, but, in my opinion, should rule out high energy direction changes anywhere close to the ground. We are the informed professionals, (along with the regulator "helping" us), we know what the right thing to do is. It is not always giving the audience what they are asking for.....

I sort of agree Step, but it depends on what those direction changes are. Some are high risk (downward vertical manoeuvres) and others less so (a simple aileron roll). The key is having a really deep understanding of how to safely manage the jet's energy - tied in of course with good display discipline.

We've all messed up at some stage of a display, but good discipline means not pushing it. Ending the display and calling a 'technical problem' is a perfectly acceptable face-saver.