Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

[Tourist]

This has been done to death already.....

My apologies, it was on the other thread.

I've never displayed as a civvy, but my understanding from what people are saying is that in civvy displaying it is acceptable, and normal, to begin a manoeuver from a flypast at 100-200' as long as the pitch up does not pass 30 degrees nose-up before the aircraft reaches the authorised height of 500' in this case.

This is purely what I have read on the other thread, rather than any first hand knowledge.

[R4H]

Coroner's Court, lawyers, AAIB, police etc. Let's leave it to the experts to decide on manoeuvres, errors or not, liability, etc etc etc. Rumours Network is fine but Speculation Network on such sensitive issues!

[betty swallox]

Tourist.

A very unfortunate turn of phrase...

[Courtney Mil]

Sorry, I have remained silent too long.

I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft, instead of 500ft authorised for the display. If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?

You should know better than to post inflammatory stuff like that. If, if if. I could say more, but if you don't get it now my words will not help. I expected better. Maybe delete your message and I'll delete my reference to it.

[salad-dodger]

Sorry, I have remained silent too long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trim stab
I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft, instead of 500ft authorised for the display. If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?
You should know better than to post inflammatory stuff like that. If, if if. I could say more, but if you don't get it now my words will not help. I expected better. Maybe delete your message and I'll delete my reference to it.
It doesn't seem like an unreasonable question Courtney. I suspect that more than one person or groups of people will find themselves facing charges over this one.

S-D

[Courtney Mil]

But no point in promoting such ideas on the Internet. And thanks for copying and pasting the thought again. It's not the question that's the probloblem, it's repeated reference to entry height, among other things. You all seem very certain of prescribed "gates". You do not know the entry height (gate?) for the manoeuvre so stop quoting it as if you all do.

That's all I have to say about that.

[APG63]

CMil you are right. There is a miscomprehention around minimum fly by altitude and minimum aerobatic altitude. Convert to "agl" or "qfe" as you need. The run in was legal according to current regs and there is allowance for pulling up from there into a defined aerobatic manouver.

I could care less what some of the woodworms here think but they should at least get their facts right.

[O-P]

CM, APG63,

100%

Get well soon AH. Last post on this thread until you get better, which I hope is soon.

SD

You are allowed to do a flypast at 200', at some point after that event you have to climb to 500' to complete a vertical display...Is it that point... I'll stop.

[Trim Stab]

But no point in promoting such ideas on the Internet. And thanks for copying and pasting the thought again. It's not the question that's the probloblem, it's repeated reference to entry height, among other things. You all seem very certain of prescribed "gates". You do not know the entry height (gate?) for the manoeuvre so stop quoting it as if you all do.

That's all I have to say about that.

I never made any mention of "gates". I merely asked whether prosecution could follow if it were established that he had flown the display outside the authorised limits.

I don't know offhand of any precedents where a pilot has been prosecuted for deaths on the ground.

I am not "promoting" the idea - the police and CPS are not going to be the slightest bit swayed by comments on the internet.

I realise that some people on here probably know the pilot so are emotionally involved. I am sorry if my question is offensive to you.

[Trim Stab]

You are allowed to do a flypast at 200', at some point after that event you have to climb to 500' to complete a vertical display...Is it that point... I'll stop.

How is the start of the vertical display defined? Do you have to be level at 500' at the correct entry speed? Or is it acceptable to be pitched nose up and still climbing through 500'? I read on another forum that the latter is acceptable within a 30 degree nose up limit - but then what is the correct entry speed? Are these all defined in the display authorisation, or are they "unwritten" rules?

[Tourist]

Excuse me if I'm missing something, but isn't an entry gate a bit irrelevant for a high performance jet anyway?

Surely a hunter could come in at 600Kts/100' and just zoom climb with a slow pitch up into a 5000' top of loop gate anyway and then finish the manoeuver with thousands of feet to spare?

Even a Firefly had enough power to climb during aeros.

[BEagle]

Was the inquiry into the loss of the RNHF's Firefly WB271, at a Duxford air show in 2003 ever released?

There's nothing in the AAIB archives.

[Trim Stab]

Excuse me if I'm missing something, but isn't an entry gate a bit irrelevant for a high performance jet anyway?

That's not the issue here. The issue is whether the display authorisation limits were breached. If the limits are very clearly defined in writing (including the distinction between a normal vertical manoeuvre and one commenced from a low fly past), and the pilot is proven to have knowingly breached them, then I suspect there will be a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter. If there is no clear definition of minimum altitudes and speeds to enter the manoeuvre in the display authorisation then I doubt that the CPS would prosecute, because there is no precedent to do so (though no doubt the CAA would be advised to tighten up the wording of the limitations for future display authorisations, if an inappropriate entry configuration was the cause of the incident). Of course, if it is shown to be a technical issue, or pilot error during the manoeuvre, then there would be no prosecution.

[Mogwi]

BE,

I think you will find that the Firefly investigation was carried out by the RN, not AAIB and was therefore probably Restricted.

[treadigraph]

BEagle, certainly something was released as I recall reading it, or at least a summary.

[salad-dodger]

I think you will find that the Firefly investigation was carried out by the RN, not AAIB and was therefore probably Restricted.
Most reports start off as restricted, but are subsequently released outside the MoD.

S-D

[salad-dodger]

I haven't made any comment on entry or gate heights - not something I am qualified to comment on, but I do think Trim Stab's question was a reasonable one. The follow up to this accident is going to be about so much more than just the crash itself.

S-D

[Tourist]

My further apologies for inadvertently opening another diversion from the thread. I wasn't referring to the vintage Firefly.

I was taking about the little yellow trainer just to make the point that entry height is somewhat unimportant.

[idle bystander]

Well, someone, despite CM's attempt to stifle it, has started discussing the elephant in the room ...
Of course, if it is shown to be a technical issue, or pilot error during the manoeuvre, then there would be no prosecution.

Why ever not? Forgetting the issues about entry level etc, which are probably irrelevant (sorry!), are there no judicial consequences arising from the planning, approval or conduct of a manoeuvre in which a fast jet bottoms out, in a high energy state, 200ft above a busy main road, where a small mistake or technical issue could have the sort of consequences we saw at Shoreham?

People have been making comparisons here with the risks involved in just being on the roads, with the implication that the deaths of 11 bystanders should somehow be accepted, and everyone just carry on as normal. Well, if I make an error driving, take a corner faster than icy conditions allow, and wipe out a bus queue, I am pretty sure I can expect to be prosecuted, and rightly so. Should not the same principle apply to any activity which puts the general public at risk?

[salad-dodger]

IB, well said, and yes to both of your questions.

As I have said before, a great many people are going to come under scrutiny after this accident. Everyone involved with operating the aircraft - maintaining, flying, planning, training, authorising etc.

Everyone involved with the flying and risk assessment aspects of the airshow. The decision, if there was one, to allow that display over that road, is clearly also going to come under the spotlight. The regulations and regulator too, because there are going to be many questions about experience, competence, training, currency, display planning and authorisation and probably many more things beside.

Bear in mind also that this came only a few weeks after the Gnat crash at CarFest which could have a different outcome.

S-D

[Trim Stab]

just to make the point that entry height is somewhat unimportant.

It is unimportant (for powered aircraft) as long as nothing goes wrong in the manoeuvre. Clearly something went wrong in this particular manoeuvre. We don't know whether it was pilot error, or temporary pilot incapacitation, or a technical problem, or something else. Whatever the case, if he had started the manoeuvre even a few dozen feet higher, the incident would not have happened.

I suspect that the exact wording of the display authorisation and the aircraft parameters at the start of the manouevre are going to get looked at in some detail.

[BEagle]

I get the impression that some of the more recent contributors must have been tricoteuses in a former life.....:uhoh:

Thanks for the gen. regarding the Firefly accident, moggie.

[The Old Fat One]

I get the impression they know very little about the law in the UK...either in theory or practice.

[Trim Stab]

I get the impression they know very little about the law in the UK...either in theory or practice.

Would you care to elaborate if you consider yourself a legal expert? Is display flying exempt from normal legal process? Is there some sort of liability waiver given to display pilots? I don't know - it is a genuine question.

However, I do know that if I kill somebody through a reckless or irresponsible act then I can expect charges of involuntary manslaughter and, if prosecuted, a moderately heavy jail sentence. The AAIB preliminary report states that he commenced the display at 200' rather than 500' which was authorised. Already, that doesn't look too good. There may well be wording in the display authorisation that permitted this under certain circumstances which may emerge later - I hope so for his sake. However, if there are no mitigations then I can't see the police or CPS letting this go lightly, given the severity of the consequences. I would also expect the various insurance companies that are involved will also be taking a close interest.

[idle bystander]

I get the impression that some of the more recent contributors must have been tricoteuses in a former life.....


At last an erudite comment!
Actually, it isn't that I wish to see someone punished, so much as to see it made very clear to everyone, in whatever field, that if they put the lives of members of the general public at risk through reckless actions when engaged in their hobby, they will face dire consequences if it all goes horribly wrong.

Les tricoteuses probably thought that the aristocrats needed to be taught a lesson as well. Some might agree with them ...

[1Magnus]

Trim Stab: as far as I can see, not everyone here would agree that the final manoeuvre begins at the 200 ft point, nor does the AAIB report 'state' that.

Have another look at the diagram in the AAIB report: it is true that the aircraft dips down to 200 ft before the final manoeuvre, but it could be argued that that is not the beginning of the manoeuvre.

See the dip down to 100ft before the preceding Derry roll: that point of 100 ft at the display line is similarly not the beginning of the Derry roll.

Surely it must be possible and allowed for display pilots to dip down to 100 ft or 200 ft *in between* manoeuvres.

[KenV]

I realise that some people on here probably know the pilot so are emotionally involved. I am sorry if my question is offensive to you.

I don't know the pilot at all. I am not in the least "emotionally involved" regarding the pilot or the victims on the ground. Yet I find public speculation about legal prosecution of the pilot based on the flimsiest of data and essentially zero understanding of display flying patently offensive.

[salad-dodger]

I think we are all familiar with the attitudes in the US to aircrews being held to account for their actions Ken. I won't list the examples.

I am not arguing for or against the pilot in the Shoreham crash to be held to account by the way.

S-D

[dsc810]

Well one thing is for certain
The unfortunate pilot and his family would be well advised to contact a firm of solicitors who are experts in this particular field of the law and in the meantime to say absolutely nothing whatsoever to anyone regardless of whom they are.

[langleybaston]

QUOTE Yet I find public speculation about legal prosecution of the pilot based on the flimsiest of data and essentially zero understanding of display flying patently offensive.

The matter is nothing to do with understanding flying at all.
I believe the basic premise is that if a person, for any reason, is involved in the cause of death of another there is bound to be enquiry. The possible outcomes certainly include involuntary manslaughter.
It happens frequently on the roads: drivers make misjudgements or drive unroadworthy vehicles, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or when tired.

[JointShiteFighter]

KenV, I agree.

I think I understand why Courtney is (so far) politely requesting that people button it. He is doing so out of fairness. Speculating on the cause of the accident, pointing fingers, suggesting legal consequences.... it's not fair, is it? It's not fair on Andy or his family, it's not fair on the families of the victims, and it's not fair on the event organisers.

Perhaps it's for the best that we let the experts do their job? They will have the answers.

[Courtney Mil]

OK Trim Stab, let me be clear. First,

I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft

I see no reason why he shouldn't. I'm not sure why you would regard the entry height as an allegation since you posted earlier,

The AAIB preliminary report states that he commenced the display at 200'

Second,

instead of 500ft authorised for the display.

And

rather than 500' which was authorised.

Neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what is in Andy's display authorisation. If you don't understand what a display authorisation is or where minimum heights are stipulated read CAP 403 before repeating such "allegations" in public. You should already be conversant with the Air Navigation Order given your CPL. Perhaps you might consider if the allegations were made by anyone that has seen Andy's DA; I doubt its contents will reach the public domain until much later in the investigation.

The display regulations would allow a 100 foot fly past to pull up into an aerobatic manoeuvre and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the entry, provided the FDD, CAA or the pilot's DAE had not imposed additional restrictions. As none of that information is currently available, your question is based on someone else's uninformed speculation.

Third,

If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?

I am astonished either that you cannot understand how inappropriate that question is in public or that you simply choose to ignore that it is. Anyone here with half a brain can work out the answer to your question, but most seem to be capable of keeping such bad taste musings to themselves. As you probably already know the answer, I have to wonder what would motivate you to invite yet further speculation on that.

The title of this forum may include the word 'rumour', but it starts with the word 'professional'. Behave as such and show some respect rather than feeding your idle curiosity about whether a well-respected professional pilot is going to be prosecuted.

[Mach the Knife]

Agree with absolutely every thing Courtney Mil said above. The entry height is irrelevant to the mvr flown and those quoting it as a potential factor in the accident merely highlight their lack of knowledge and understanding of low level display flying.

[Brian W May]

Yep, discussion is pretty much irrelevant as the vast majority don't fly Air Displays and whatever is said you can't uncrash the jet.

There are no winners, hopefully someone may learn something that makes this kind of accident less likely.

I just feel very sorry for all concerned, especially the bereaved and those marred and scarred.

[Pittsextra]

Neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what is in Andy's display authorisation. Thats not true is it? The AAIB special bulletin gives the following:-


He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard3 category aerobatic manoeuvres.
You have mentioned motives before, perhaps someone is just trying to understand why, on a hot day with full tanks on display No.1 you might start low? Why try and blur that?

All this talk of "you can start from 100 feet and pull up into your figure" is just poor because how is one assessing that? I don't see how that methodology allows for very accurate / consistent entry, let alone how the FDD or DAE does the same when trying to fulfill the requirements of their roles. As indeed it proves given what has followed.

Its fair enough to defend a friend or whatever but to actively ignore some fairly obvious elements doesn't make you professional at all.

[KenV]

I think we are all familiar with the attitudes in the US to aircrews being held to account for their actions Ken. I won't list the examples.

You've completely misunderstood. I have no problems holding aircrew accountable for their actions or inactions. Let me repeat what I clearly stated the first time: I find public speculation about legal prosecution of the pilot based on the flimsiest of data and essentially zero understanding of display flying patently offensive.

[KenV]

The unfortunate pilot and his family would be well advised to contact a firm of solicitors who are experts in this particular field of the law and in the meantime to say absolutely nothing whatsoever to anyone regardless of whom they are. To me, such "advice" is equally offensive as the speculation. Maybe worse. It certainly paints the pilot as guilty of something and as having something to hide. I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US all testimony provided in an accident investigation canNOT be used in a court of law precisely to ensure that all the facts are known so such an accident can be prevented. The lawyers have to use other sources of evidence.

[Mach Two]

Pitts,

It's no surprise that you would chime in on that. If you believe that's the full extent of AH's DA then you know less about the subject than I previously believed.

The remainder of your post is purely argumentative and has little or nothing to do with CM's well made point concerning the poor taste of TS's inappropriate conjecture about prosecution. To answer one of your relevant questions, the DAE assesses all those aspects of the display and it is his call as to whether or not the entry heights are safe. He does not simply assess the display and the pilot, he has a significant teaching and mentoring role as well - both before and after DA is issued in many cases. So, all this talk of "you can start from 100 feet and pull up into your figure" is not POOR because it is very carefully assessed in a long and thorough process. I gather, regardless of your name here, you've never been involved in it. You may research it a little more carefully before rubbishing it here.

[langleybaston]

QUOTE

in the US all testimony provided in an accident investigation canNOT be used in a court of law precisely to ensure that all the facts are known so such an accident can be prevented

If I understand this it seems incredible, as it puts an investigation above the law.

Perhaps I misunderstand?

[Pittsextra]

Mach - once again there seems to be words being added which I didn't express.

To be clear I highlighted that the point CM made that people have "any idea what is in" AH's DA. Well they do have an idea because the AAIB have given us at least "some" idea.

Sorry Mach but that is not being simply argumentative it is correcting the facts of the matter. As for assessing 100ft to 500ft you tell me how you do that from the ground and how that becomes the smart way to do things?

You are running me over for it and suggesting I have no idea (why you gather or assume to know me only you know) but are you really suggesting that this won't be an element of focus later? Its a serious point sincerely asked.

[dagenham]

Correct it cannot - the same applies in the UK, for example hearsay will be examined in an investigation to get a fuller picture, but it is inadmissible in a court of law.

The reasonableness is the test - to be found guilty of any offence you have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hearsay does not pass this test.

[deefer dog]

Personally I think this a rather unpleasant matter to be discussing on a public forum when almost every contentious point can only be treated as speculative at this point in time, and because we are talking about a professional colleague who right now has a heap of drama to deal with.

Notwithstanding this, of course I understand the trauma, sadness and tragic loss, but obviously cannot comprehend the magnitude, that is being endured by the families of the innocent bystanders who so unfortunately lost their lives. These people are quite rightly seeking answers, but I believe the last thing they want to be reading now is uninformed and misinterpreted conjecture printed in red tops that is sourced, in part, from these pages, and the result of which might lead them to believe something that is later established not to be the case.

[Odanrot]

Deefer Dog, wise words from one so young.

Would anyone care to explain the purpose of this discussion? I am a retired RAF Fastjet pilot who has flown the Hunter and performed LL aeros. I have now seen all the videos posted and come to the conclusion that the accident could have been caused by several factors or events, but from these videos and the AAIB initial report I am unable to say with any certainty at all what the cause of the accident was.

The AAIB will have access to all that I have seen and much more and they will publish the definitive cause of this tragedy and any contributory factors in due course. Until then we should be hoping / praying, whatever you do, for the recovery of AH and the poor souls that died and their families, and leave all the rest of the crap I have been reading to the ambulance chasers.

Nuff said

[Bill Macgillivray]

Deefer,

Spot on!!

Bill.

[JointShiteFighter]

...but to actively ignore some fairly obvious elements doesn't make you professional at all.

Sorry, but you come across as rude and obnoxious with that statement. Just who are you to judge somebody's level of professionalism for doing the right thing by refusing to speculate on a fatal crash that involved a fellow fast-jet pilot?

Keeping quiet and allowing the experts to do their job in peace is far more professional (and respectful) than running ones mouth when they don't have access to the facts.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if AH's family were lurking on this thread, and I can't imagine how bad they feel when reading speculation from people who really should know better.

[dagenham]

JSF

You are quite right, but also this has impact for many more. I was over for a brief visit to the south coast and travelling down the A27 to Brighton on Friday before the show and travelled back the very next day. I was talked out of going to watch the show by my partner and spent the lunch in a pub and watched the emergency response go by.

Equally, there is enough potential fault to go around - the road was clearly signposted - no parking or watching the airshow from the A27 for the reasons clearly demonstrated by this tragic turn of events. So the risks to bystanders ( clearly not those driving on the A27) was clearly pointed out, what did the police do to manage this etc etc. you could go on - the simple fact, as every ticket states is that Air displays like motor racing are dangerous and clearly you take risks by attending.

The impact on everyone local has been tremendous, the impact of this is far beyond PPRUNE,everyone has the right to answers and there is a process for that to happen. What is most important is to understand what actually happened, in a fair, accurate and transparent way, learn the lessons and take the appropriate actions. Not only out of respect to Andy but also out of respect of everyone who has been impacted by this event.

[salad-dodger]

Sorry, but you come across as rude and obnoxious with that statement.
Sorry JSF, but you may also be guilty in that respect. PE's response to CM seemed reasonable. You may not like what he is asking, but that does not make him rude and obnoxious. I would suggest that it also does not make him unprofessional.
I have mentioned it before, but there is still a real feeling of people closing ranks here and refusing to contemplate or ask the difficult questions. I don't hold by the "wait for the investigation" view. Constructive discussion can be of enormous benefit in the meantime.

S-D

[DaveUnwin]

"Constructive discussion can be of enormous benefit in the meantime."

That would indeed be true, if we were in possession of all the facts, and it is patently obvious to most of us that we clearly are not.

Why can't all you armchair experts understand that the reason all the proper experts aren't commenting is that they are fully aware that all they really know is that they don't know enough to comment?

A prerequisite for a constructive discussion is to have all the relevant data. Without that, its all bulldust and speculation - IMHO of course.

[just another jocky]

Constructive discussion can be of enormous benefit in the meantime.

To whom exactly?

[salad-dodger]

That would indeed be true, if we were in possession of all the facts, and it is patently obvious to most of us that we clearly are not.
You are right, we don't know all of the facts. We may never know all of the facts. This type of crash will always happen in aviation, operators make mistakes, technical failures occur etc. But in this case, so much more went wrong to cause 11 deaths. Many other air shows and public events will take place before the AAIB reports. There are lessons already that can be taken away from this. Even if event organisers are already reconsidering the risks to surrounding areas, that is a start.

To whom exactly?
What a daft question.

S-D

[Pittsextra]

There is a lot of emotion on here, in some regards that is understandable but when people get bent out of shape over the view that what was flown was a 1/4 clover or arguing about items that have been published in an AAIB bulletin it seems a little OTT. Just look in the last few posts - now we are getting all entrenched over AH's DA and yet some elements of that were in the AAIB bulletin. Maybe ultimately no rules were broken, maybe what was flown fits and ticks all the boxes - except its fair to ask why start low with full tanks, on a hot day? Regardless of what is in your DA.

I think a lot forget this is the internet and if you want an argument you will likely find one although in the main, insensitive as it may seem to some, many questions are entire fair.

Wait for the AAIB report, possession of all the facts, access to the facts, being professional and loyal to a fellow fast jet pilot and so it goes.

Well some points.

First of all the AAIB have published some facts. Those and the films that have been widely published allow people to take a view. Is it unreasonable on an internet forum to ask honest questions about what one can see or read? Do people honestly expect (given the scale of those impacted in this) for all this to go away until when? 2017? for an AAIB report? Seriously?

Possession of all the facts, well not withstanding that anyone is ever going to call when you have ALL of the facts. It seems to me that some wish to ignore what is already known and wait for a magic bullet that makes everything else go away. No doubt there could be a huge technical issue lurking behind all of this (in fact oddly when I suggested you might not be able to see the altimeter whilst rolling left someone said "you can't see it straight and level" - as if it was some badge of honor! OK so you can't see the altimeter in a Hunter... seems fairly fundemental to me) , however even then there are still valid points to be discussed from what we do know.

Starting height methodology, time in the display aircraft and what configuration its in, hot weather affects, the figures being flown and the defined start of such figure and the previous routine verse the accident one. None of those questions are a slur on the pilot. None. As has been pointed out their is a very well established structure to this and so AH is not standing alone.

To ignore these points is just head in the sand and I'm not sure how that helps the overall situation. In fact lets be frank the answers to any of those basic points could be obtained fairly easily with some straight talking - which is going to come given the magnitude of the event. My view is that as a group you become more credible later if you engage.

[Tourist]

Pitts

That's all very well, but as we all know, this forum is monitored by the media, and a frenzy can be triggered by the asking of questions in a pejorative manner such as your :

"why start low with full tanks, on a hot day?"

This might seem, to the non aviator, to be an important question.

It suggests some kind of rashness on the part of the pilot just by the fact that the question is asked.



I can do it too.

"Why start with a vertical roll to the left on an east / west runway!?"

"Why was he wearing green rather than white gloves!?"


It could sound to the uninitiated to be relevant, but patently isn't.

Not all questions are equally valid, and the discussion is not helped by irrelevancies.

It isn't "closing ranks".
It is an effort to maintain clarity.

[just another jocky]

What a daft question.

S-D

At least I wasn't rude.

Genuine question though.

First time I've posted on this thread and still don't feel the need to give my opinion on events and was genuinely wondering who everyone thought benefitted from this discussion.

[Pittsextra]

Tourist - I know you were just trying to make the point but as you know temp on the day, weight and height are going to be of much greater focus than the colour of ones gloves.

Are you serious about being an irrelevant point, because its absolutely relevant. Perhaps one might also like to reflect that not everything that gets authority is spot on. For example the G-HURR crash.

[olster]

I would not rule out a g - loc event. It happened to a red arrow and a blue angel in recent years. AH is obviously a professional aviator in either the airline context or fast jet: he did not intent to have a catastrophic accident and that should be the starting point. However, 11 members of the public were killed therefore there will be an enquiry and there will be conclusions and new rules I suspect. Commiserations and condolences to all involved.

[Mach Two]

Pitts,

You still don't get it, do you? I don't know what kind of aviation expert you are because you consistently refuse to offer any credential, but you seem to pop up with the same loaded questions and expert opinion on every accident-related thread in the entire site - helos, fast jets, light aircraft and airliners. And every time people tell you the same thing about trying to draw your own conclusions with only a fraction of the necessary information and every time you trot out the same arguments about safety and it taking too long for the AAIB to complete its investigation. And every time you fail to understand why people are telling you that speculating about the causes of accidents with so little evidence is very likely to lead you to the wrong conclusions. You also seem to ignore what people tell you about carelessly implying some sort of pilot error - or, at least, asking inappropriate questions in a manner that suggests that is where your interest lies.

If your intention is genuinely about improving safety, perhaps people here would be better inclined to discuss if you were to explain how you intend to draw safety lessons, what you intend to do with them and how.

Now my main point. There is a world of difference between discussing technical, physiological and established events and speculating about what errors the pilot made. The word 'Pilot' in the site's title might give you a clue as to the sort of reception the wording of your posts might receive. And it doesn't matter how many times you deploy the same old arguments, you are unlikely to change that, especially as the pilots here have no idea of your professional interest in it or why you think you are qualified to draw an expert opinion. We do get armchair experts, unscrupulous journos (as well as some welcome, open, bona fide ones) and trolls here.

As you have now started your own thread (Differing reactions to accidents - Why?) to whine about the common aircrew reaction, I suggest you actually read and try to understand the replies you get. I suspect you will choose to trot out your same old safety line instead.

By all means discuss details of accidents and take an interest in others' points of view, but what people are saying to you here is stay away from
speculation about fault, blame, error, judgement and competency until there is evidence to indicate that any of those are relevant factors.

I hope that helps you.

[dsc810]

Sorry, but in the UK AAIB reports ARE admissible as evidence in court.
The AAIB may be required to attend and to be cross examined on the content of the report.
They will be treated as a expert witness.
Please see
Rogers v Hoyle: legal victory for claimants in UK aviation claims (http://www.stewartslaw.com/rogers-v-hoyle-legal-victory-for-claimants-in-uk-aviation-claims.aspx)

You will note that the original decision was appealed and the appeal court agreed with the lower High Court finding that AAIB reports were admissible.
This is now legal precedent.

I hope you all now understand why I earlier said that the unfortunate pilot should say nothing whatsoever without legal representation.

[212man]

Sorry, but in the UK AAIB reports ARE admissible as evidence in court

The report may be, but the earlier posts referred to the witness statements and testimony gathered in the course of the investigation - not the same thing.

[langleybaston]

In my naiivity as a retired Met Man MoD I thought that witness statements and testimony gathered in the course of the investigation would be included, or summarised, in the AAIB report.

Certainly Met. is.

[212man]

There is rarely, if any, any verbatim comment and all witnesses are disidentified (Witness A, Witness B etc).

[langleybaston]

I have taken the aviation aspect out of the thread and rejigged a statement made above, with which I agree. See if it makes sense please.

[I]Mr X is obviously a driver in either HGVs or cars: he did not intend to have a catastrophic accident and that should be the starting point.
However, X members of the public were killed therefore there will be an enquiry and there will be conclusions and possibly new rules.

[JointShiteFighter]

That would indeed be true, if we were in possession of all the facts, and it is patently obvious to most of us that we clearly are not.

That would have been my response to S-D.

S-D, I agree that there are definitely lessons to be learned, but we can not say exactly what they are until we know what caused this crash.

[Pontius Navigator]

One thing I don't think has been mentioned was the Hunter display programme that day. Was the plan for a show only at Shoreham or were there further display s planned? Or perhaps a transit post display?

That could explain the fuel load.

[Pittsextra]

Mach - what part of my post number 803 was so offensive or seen as trolling or assuming anything? I'm not sure why you take questions to be statements of fact. You keep calling me out and I'm happy for you to think I know jack and your reasoned response to all is wait for all the facts, wait for the report.

If that works for you then great but there are some items to be questioned now and actually they could have been in the bulletin that was published but for some reason were not. i.e. the valid question asked in post 815 - which I believe it was to go onto Bournemouth, (note - I didn't say what to do there etc before you jump on that) but that was an understanding.

To say we can't learn anything until a full AAIB report comes out is I think inaccurate, because this forum is more like a bar, clubhouse or crew room. Conversations take place and people know people etc so elements always come out as the AAIB can not tackle all accident events without speaking to others.

Otherwise lets close our eyes and ears and wait until 2017 for a full report.

[Mach Two]

As expected, you have simply trotted out your same old stuff and completely ignored what I have tried to explain to about why members here have kept on telling you the same things about your post for the last two years at least.
what part of my post number 803 was so offensive or seen as trolling or assuming anything

Nothing. I didn’t say ‘offensive’, no one called you a troll. Read my post properly.

I'm not sure why you take questions to be statements of fact

I don't. I and others have made it perfectly clear that it is the intent of your questions and the relevance you appear to attach to the issues involved. Read my post properly.

there are some items to be questioned now and actually they could have been in the bulletin that was published but for some reason were not

An interim bulletin will only ever discuss facts that have been established so far. They do not speculate on anything else, nor will they list all the aspects of the crash that they are going to investigate. I agree that there are technical, physiological and established events to discuss. Read my post properly.

To say we can't learn anything until a full AAIB report comes out is I think inaccurate

We can. But lots of people have warned you off speculating about error, blame and failings at this stage. Read posts from members replying to you over the past two years properly.

To help you read my points, here is a precis.

- you seem to pop up with the same loaded questions and expert opinion on every accident-related thread in the entire site - helos, fast jets, light aircraft and airliners. And every time people tell you the same thing about trying to draw your own conclusions with only a fraction of the necessary

- you fail to understand why people are telling you that speculating about the causes of accidents with so little evidence is very likely to lead you to the wrong conclusions.

- You also seem to ignore what people tell you about carelessly implying some sort of pilot error - or, at least, asking inappropriate questions in a manner that suggests that is where your interest lies.

- There is a world of difference between discussing technical, physiological and established events and speculating about what errors the pilot made.

- especially as the pilots here have no idea of your professional interest in it or why you think you are qualified to draw an expert opinion

- We do get armchair experts, unscrupulous journos (as well as some welcome, open, bona fide ones) and trolls here.

- what people are saying to you here is stay away from speculation about fault, blame, error, judgement and competency until there is evidence to indicate that any of those are relevant factors.

[Ubehagligpolitiker]

I have followed this thread with great interest. It is clear that a number of people are ex-Hunter operators, some with display experience, and really know what they are talking about. Also there are contributions from others with a fast jet background with display experience that also know what they’re talking about. Others are not so knowledgeable but PPrune is a democratic forum and people are free to air their views.

Clearly, it is essential to establish exactly what caused this accident and only the board of inquiry will be able to do this, so in a way, all of the input to this thread so far is speculation, some of it very well informed but still speculation. Over a long RAF career I was always taught to wait for the BoI findings but other PPrune contributors may not share my view.

While it is essential to establish the cause of this accident the fundamental point is that it happened at an air show and resulted in multiple fatalities and injuries. The BoI is bound to make recommendations that could affect future air displays and could well have an impact of future events at Shoreham.

[Reheat On]

Any chance we could calm down please? Its getting tad warm in here :)

There are questions of course such as :

Why did it happen?
What is the chain of events that led to the impact?
What, if anything, should change for the future?
Are there issues of liability and if so, against whom?

These need to be asked AT SOME POINT and one hope answers will emerge but there are two legal processes underway:

The Inquest and the AAIB investigation.

The forensic site examination has only just finished for example. [Forensic because I understand that such an accident site is a crime scene under UK law until evidence proves a crime NOT to have been committed.]

The A27 road has only just reopened in full, and the local MP has secured a debate in London.


Shoreham A27 fully reopens after air crash
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34266018)

There was a parliamentary debate this week:

Shoreham air crash: MP calls for rule changes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34258183)

Westminster Hall debates: 15 September 2015 - News from Parliament - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/september/westminster-hall-debates-15-september-2015/)

UK Parliament - Westminster Hall Shoreham Air Show Crash [Mr Graham Brady in the Chair] (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150915/halltext/150915h0002.htm#15091551000397)

The transcript is this:

15 Sep 2015 : Column 279WH

Shoreham Air Show Crash

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

3.59 pm

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Shoreham air show crash and its implications.

On 22 August, a vintage Hawker Hunter jet plane crashed at the Shoreham air show in my constituency. Eleven men tragically lost their lives, and many stories of the personal tragedies that accompanied that loss touched a chord across the nation. It represented the largest civilian loss of life in the United Kingdom since 7/7, and the first fatalities on the ground at any UK air show since 1952.

Those statistics will give little comfort to the victims’ families, and I am sure that I echo the feelings of the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers go out to them, and that the first priority remains to give them the support that they will need in these difficult times. Neither should we forget the pilot, who continues to recover from his horrific injuries. I am grateful to hon. Members who have passed on their good wishes and condolences to the families through me.

I am delighted to see the Minister here today to respond to this debate, which is born out of such tragedy. The accident is, quite properly, the subject of investigation by the air accidents investigation branch, and it is certainly not my intention to pre-empt the findings of those investigations. My constituents and others have been at pains not to rush to judgment about exactly what went wrong, or the implications for Shoreham air show—and, indeed, all the other air shows that draw large crowds across the country—until we know the facts of the case. There are some 300 civil flying displays in the country every year, which attract in excess of 2 million spectators. That does not include military displays. The results of the investigation will affect an awful lot of events and displays around the country.

I want to pay tribute to the emergency services, particularly to the first responders who had to deal with the most harrowing scenes, and to those involved in the investigation and clean-up operation in the aftermath of the accident. I want to highlight the fantastic way in which the local community rallied around in light of the tragedy. I want to touch on the implications for dealing with such major incidents in the future, and I want to raise various safety questions that will need to be answered in the fullness of time.

It is worth pointing out that this was an accident—a fortunately rare, but most tragic, accident. The Shoreham air show has been run by the Royal Air Forces Association for the past 26 years, raising more than £2 million for its excellent charity. It is appropriate to mention that today as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the battle of Britain, where many of the planes that we see and their forebears played a vital role. Today, if the weather has improved, some 40 Spitfires and Hurricanes will be flying over the south of England to mark that anniversary, based at the Goodwood aerodrome near my constituency.

15 Sep 2015 : Column 280WH

The Shoreham air show has been run for 26 years with an excellent record, and the honorary organiser, Derek Harber from RAFA, has put a huge amount of effort and dedication into the show with his team. I know from meeting RAFA representatives that the safety of the performers, the safety of the spectators and the safety of the local community are always paramount considerations when organising the show, as I am sure they are for all other similar events. The air show is part of the local scene and part of the Shoreham calendar. This year, when the tragic accident happened, more than 20,000 people had come to see the displays. There were 50 planes, including the Vulcan in its farewell and the RAF Falcons parachute display team. The air show has won awards for the best family event in Sussex and the best family air show in the United Kingdom. People come for a fun, thrilling day out. It is also worth pointing out that the air show is held at Britain’s oldest commercial airport in Shoreham, which has had planes flying into and out of it since 1911. A lot of thought and planning goes into the event.

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sorry that I missed his initial observations. He referred to the importance of flying displays, the tradition at Shoreham and the fact that flying displays are hugely popular across the country. They are the second most popular outdoor spectator activity. In my capacity as the president of the British Air Display Association, I can assure him that every air show is policed by a flying control committee and a display director. A huge amount of effort goes into ensuring that such displays are very carefully managed for the protection and enjoyment of the public.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am grateful to him for the helpful advice that he gave me in the aftermath of the accident, as somebody who knows great deal more about such matters than I do. Air shows are important events, and safety is paramount. The people who oversaw the Shoreham air show were of the highest calibre, integrity and experience. This is not some amateur operation; it is run in a hugely professional way, and quite rightly so. It was a tragic and, as I say, fortunately rare accident, but clearly changes will need to be made to the way in which this and other air shows are run in the future if they are to continue.

The Civil Aviation Authority was right swiftly to take a precautionary approach and to suspend performances by vintage jets until we know more from the investigations. That has affected many air shows already, and it is important to establish exactly what is likely to happen, with some timescales, as soon as possible, because organisers want to start the preparations for next year’s air shows. It is very important for a whole host of reasons that we find out what went wrong and what needs to be changed in the future.

Sir Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend said that displays by vintage jets have been suspended. In fact, it is the high-energy manoeuvres that have been suspended, not the aircraft. The Vulcan continues to perform until 18 October.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend expertly corrects me with that detail, for which I am grateful.

15 Sep 2015 : Column 281WH

If a crumb of comfort has come out of this horrible tragedy, it is the absolutely incredible performance by the emergency services and the first responders. Police officers from the whole of Sussex and firefighters from west Sussex, east Sussex, Hampshire and further afield helped out on the day and in the immediate aftermath. The south-east coast ambulance service was on the scene very swiftly, and Worthing hospital took on casualties. Organisations such as the Red Cross, and many volunteers, performed incredibly.

The scene was one of devastation: there were badly damaged bodies and incinerated cars. Fortunately, the impact zone was relatively well contained. I drove along the A27 one minute before the accident, and I was completely oblivious to what had happened behind me until I got home and saw the news. When I drove by, there were 60 or 70 spectators on the verge of the A27, watching the air show from outside the confines of the airport, and traffic was tailing back about 200 yards along the road waiting to get into the air show. Fortunately, I gather, the traffic lights had just cleared green, otherwise there could have been three lanes of stationary traffic at the plane’s point of impact. There were assorted stewards and other volunteers in the area.

Given all that, it is amazing that only 11 people lost their lives. It could have been much, much worse. Just a few hundred yards away there was a big factory, Ricardo, and there were 20,000 spectators enjoying the air display. I am sure that the reactions of the first responders went a long way to avoiding further suffering and injury. The way in which they contained the situation and dealt with 20,000 people in a confined space was absolutely extraordinary. We cannot underestimate the contribution that the emergency services made.

I visited the scene on the following Monday in the aftermath of the crash with the chief constable and police commissioner, and I saw the painstaking work of the investigators. They made the whole area into a grid and carried out a fingertip search for any evidence—and of course, I fear, the remains of the victims—which is why it took some time to establish that the total number of victims was 11. The plane was lifted on the day I visited, and fortunately there were no further casualties underneath it. More than 200 professionals were on site, in appalling weather conditions. The coroner’s office and all her professionals did an outstanding job. It is difficult to fault what went on. A 3D film of the site was taken so that the investigators have a full record of what they have to look at.

The operation was really impressive. All the agencies worked together seamlessly and professionally. Adur District Council and West Sussex County Council both did their bit. All the agencies had prepared, which is important. This was not just a knee-jerk reaction to a disaster; it was a second-worst-case scenario for which the police, ambulances and firefighters had planned. Their plan went into operation, and it worked.

I have met police officers, fire officers and others who dropped everything—some came back from holiday, and others returned to duty—to appear at their desks and do their job without complaint. That is real professionalism. I saw the family support officers working sensitively with the families, many of whom were waiting for news because it took many days before they knew whether their loved ones were among the victims. I saw the Red Cross canteen, with free food donated by Tesco to provide sustenance to all the professionals on the site.

15 Sep 2015 : Column 282WH

Brighton and Hove Albion football club lent its training centre just down the road, which became the police control centre that fed and watered all the officers. Lancing College provided accommodation and catering just next door. Marks & Spencer sent a consignment of fresh socks down to the site because all the police were getting terribly wet feet in the appalling conditions. Local people baked 500 cakes, which were delivered to the civic centre, many with messages and well wishes to be passed on to police officers, firefighters and others working at the site.

I am proud of that effort, which shows the importance of training and preparation. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that importance. Such training and preparation may be below the radar, and it may be unseen, but it is so important in such rare cases where it needs to kick into action. I hope we will preserve the importance and funding for such preparation.

I am also really proud of my community. There were numerous one-minute silences and one-minute applauses across the area. The old toll bridge just down from the accident site became a focus of everyone’s grief—it became the bridge of flowers, and the air was heavy with the scent. A constant queue of people have brought flowers, tributes, poems and football shirts, which continues today. I noticed a half-bottle of pink champagne, which is of significance to one of the victims. Tributes were paid at the Brighton and Hove football match I attended last Saturday and at Worthing United football club, for which two of the victims used to play. More than 7,000 people came along to the bridge in Shoreham to light candles, with people queuing in the rain for more than an hour.

The local road network was in complete chaos for several weeks after the crash and, indeed, is not back to normal, but the Highways Agency reported that it received the grand sum of eight complaints in the first week, such was the patience of local people who realised the magnitude of what happened. So far, more than £50,000 has been raised by the Sussex Community Foundation appeal. I am helping to organise a memorial service at Lancing College chapel in a few weeks’ time. People and the families can come along to pay their respects and show their appreciation for the efforts of the emergency services.

The first question asked by everyone in Lancing, Shoreham and the wider area was, “What more can we do?” If there is such a thing as a textbook response to such an enormous tragedy, this was it: by our emergency services and the importance of emergency planning, and by the way the local community rallied round, which showed how we all care. I am proud to be their MP.

There had previously been a crash at the Shoreham air show in 2007. Alas, a pilot lost his life, but there were no other casualties, when a Hawker Hurricane ploughed into the downs. Changes were made to the timing of the air show and the flightpath into the air show following that crash, but there are still questions. Should such high-powered jet planes be flying further away from the crowd? The trouble with the air show is that the spectators are not only at the airfield site; they are on the roads and in pubs and houses on the downs for far around to get a good vantage point. Many of the victims, of course, were not actually at, or intending to go to, the air show; they were travelling past on the A27.

15 Sep 2015 : Column 283WH

With such demanding manoeuvres, are we expecting too much of very old aircraft? This plane was built in 1951, although it had been well maintained, and the pilots who flew it, including the one flying on the day, were highly skilled and highly experienced. I said at the beginning that it is important not to rush to judgment until we have all the facts, but can we make these events safer without losing their appeal? Can we find a practical solution? What is the next step? What is the timetable? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. What lessons can we learn from the emergency services’ operation, and how could those lessons apply to other serious incidents that we need to prepare for across the country? It is important that we do not cut back on training and emergency planning, however invisible it might be most of the year.

I pay tribute to the families of the victims who lost their lives. We must continue to look after them. If there is one crumb of comfort from all this, it is the fantastic performance of our emergency services, who did an amazing job. It is a very demanding job that we would not do ourselves, and they performed it hugely professionally. The community rallied round and appreciates their work. It is a horrible tragedy, but we owe it to the families to get to the bottom of exactly what happened, and we must make sure that we go the nth mile to make things as safe as possible so that we do not have a repeat of the horrible event on the day of 22 August in Shoreham.

4.15 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his deeply moving and very thoughtful speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) for contributing his knowledge of this subject, which is clearly profound.

On Saturday 22 August, 11 people were killed when a Hawker Hunter aircraft taking part in the Shoreham air show crashed into the A27. Those people were going about their daily business: one was working as a chauffeur on his way to pick up a bride on her wedding day; another was taking photographs of the air show from the verge; and others were travelling entirely separately from the air show to have fun, to see friends and to play sport. Tragically, none of those people completed their journey. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said, this awful accident resulted in the first loss of life on the ground at an air show since 1952 and the largest single loss of civilian life since the incidents of 7/7. It is a true tragedy.

This debate allows me to put on record my condolences, and indeed the condolences of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport, to all those affected, especially the families who have lost loved ones. I also offer my profound thanks to the emergency services, which, as we have heard so eloquently described, responded with professionalism and effectiveness in the face of what must have been a harrowing task—the first responders, the police officers and the fire service personnel. We have heard how those people were supported by members of the local community, both on that tragic day and
15 Sep 2015 : Column 284WH

since. I have asked the question and am pleased to know that counselling and support is available for members of the emergency services who need it. Emergency service personnel and West Sussex County Council are working to provide post-traumatic counselling for those affected by the crash.

I express my admiration for my hon. Friend, who worked tirelessly on what must have been an extremely difficult day, and over the difficult weeks since, to help the local community come together, to further the investigation and to ask tough questions to ensure that this does not happen again. I understand that he is involved in discussions with the community about an appropriate service of memorial. This is a deeply personal and local matter, but the Government stand by willing to help and support in any way we can.

It might be helpful if I set out exactly what is happening with the investigation timetable, and hopefully I will answer my hon. Friend’s questions during that process. As he knows, the air accidents investigation branch is in the careful and forensic process of investigating the causes of this accident, and it is working to ensure that such an accident cannot happen again. There has been a preliminary report on the circumstances of the crash, and he will have seen some of that information. The weather was good and the aircraft met its pre-flight checks. The aircraft was conducting a high-energy manoeuvre with both a vertical and a rolling component and, following the subsequent descent, it did not achieve level flight before striking the westbound carriageway of the A27, with tragic consequences. It was truly chilling to hear how it could have been so much worse if the timings had been different by even a split second.

I cannot speculate on the causes of the crash beyond what was stated in the preliminary report, and I do not want to pre-judge the outcome of the AAIB’s investigation, but I reassure hon. Members that action is already being taken to ensure that we learn from this tragedy and prevent it from being repeated. Three things are happening.

First, the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for regulating the safety of air displays, has acted promptly. It grounded all Hawker Hunter aircraft immediately and indefinitely on Saturday 22 August and has limited flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft to fly-pasts. High-energy aerobatics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said, have been banned.

Secondly, following the accident, the CAA is conducting additional risk assessments of all future air displays and has already introduced additional precautionary measures at some locations, resulting in changes to the displays flown. Given that this weekend is the 70th anniversary of the battle of Britain, a number of shows are being planned. Duxford air base, which many hon. Members will know, has already made changes to its display to offer more protection for the surrounding infrastructure and area.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming such a thorough and comprehensive immediate response to the incident. It is clearly appropriate. As he said, it is not the time for knee-jerk reactions. As he also said, air shows are a proud tradition in the UK, with many local events providing a centre point for the community. What made the Shoreham accident all the more tragic and poignant is that so many local families were involved, attending what had become a much-loved local event. It
15 Sep 2015 : Column 285WH

illustrates the need to ensure that we mitigate any future safety risks proportionately. We do not want to be heavy-handed, potentially ending the much-loved tradition of local air shows, which support local economies and charities, and more significant national displays that support our proud national aviation industry.

As my hon. Friend knows, to ensure the most appropriate long-term safety solution, the CAA has commenced a full review of civil air display safety standards. Although this is not an exhaustive list, it will consider: the range of permitted manoeuvres for aircraft, particularly high-performance or vintage jet aircraft; the content of the air display; the location and characteristics of the air display venue, taking particular account of the surrounding land and infrastructure. The review will conclude by the beginning of next year, but an interim report will be produced next month. The CAA has appointed an external challenge panel to test the report’s findings. The panel will be led by Geoffrey Podger, a gentleman with extensive experience of internal and external communication and risk-based regulation policy and enforcement.

The CAA has also committed to acting immediately as necessary on any new information that emerges from the current AAIB investigation. The safety of the public is of paramount concern, and of course the Government support the independent investigation and review in order to ensure that they happen in an appropriate and timely manner. On conclusion of the processes, we will give further consideration to any additional legislation that may be required to ensure that safety is maintained.

In my view, the CAA’s response to this terrible tragedy is sensible and proportionate. My hon. Friend asked me to put on record the result of careful contingency planning for emergencies, and I am happy to acknowledge its importance and the need for continued training in emergency preparedness. I am happy to provide him with that reassurance.

Of course, none of this can bring back the people who so tragically lost their lives. Again, I put on record my condolences and those of the whole Government to
15 Sep 2015 : Column 286WH

the families of the victims and those who had to deal as part of their professional or voluntary jobs with the horrific consequences of the incident. It has been a truly testing time for the local community, and it was heart-warming to hear from my hon. Friend how the communities pulled together with clean socks, cups of tea, cakes and flowers, and have come together to acknowledge the scale of the tragedy and memorialise the work and lives of those who so tragically lost their lives.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. She has made a point that I neglected to make and want to reinforce about the importance of providing support for the emergency services. Those first responders and those involved in the clean-up operation afterwards saw some extraordinarily harrowing scenes. Many of them suffered as a result, and they may not realise it until some time later. Does she agree that while it is obviously important to provide support to the families of the victims, we should not neglect to ensure that full psychological and other services are available for those on whom we depend to be professional, who are human just like us?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend makes that point well. We are asking people, in the course of their daily work and lives, things that are beyond the imagination of anyone in this room. I was delighted to ask specifically that facilities were in place to ensure that members of the emergency services receive all the counselling and support necessary.

It is a tribute to my hon. Friend’s energy and commitment that he has secured this debate. It was a tragedy of immense proportions. The immediate response has been proportionate and sensible, and a forensic review is going on to determine what more is required to ensure that we have safe air shows in future. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate.







Why don't we all wait for those reports to appear and stop the "I can speculate better than you" playground politics

Until we have a wider presentation of the FACTS we run the risk of being no better than the tabloid journalists if we continue to opine.

Time to put a temporary lock on this thread Mr Speaker I suggest.

[langleybaston]

To be fair, some of the entries have contained nonsense, not speculation, so that some other of the entries have merely reacted to the nonsense.

As you do.

[falcon900]

Whilst it isn't a substantive part of the process now under way, I thought the Westminster Hall debate had a measured and sensible tone about it, which is most welcome.

[Trim Stab]

You seem to have a habit of picking an argument with me at every opportunity. If you look back through my posts, at no point do I ever advocate prosecuting the pilot. I only ever asked if it was a possibility, given the information given in the AAIB preliminary report.

Neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what is in Andy's display authorisation. If you don't understand what a display authorisation is or where minimum heights are stipulated read CAP 403 before repeating such "allegations" in public. You should already be conversant with the Air Navigation Order given your CPL. Perhaps you might consider if the allegations were made by anyone that has seen Andy's DA; I doubt its contents will reach the public domain until much later in the investigation.

Absolutely correct - I have no idea what his DA contained. The "allegations" are not mine - they are clearly stated in the AAIB preliminary report:

The aircraft remained in a gentle right turn with the angle of bank decreasing as it descended to 100 ft amsl and flew along the display line.

This is completely within his DA. But then the report continues:


It commenced a gentle climbing right turn to 1,600 ft amsl, executing a Derry turn2 to the left and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about 45o. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left, becoming almost fully inverted at the apex of the manoeuvre at a height of approximately 2,600 ft amsl.

Is the subsequent descent to 200ft amsl within the bounds of his DA? As I wrote in an earlier post, if he had levelled out at 500ft to start his loop then the incident would never have happened. Whether you like it or not, that is going to picked over very carefully by the police and CPS.

Just to reiterate, since you appear to have some personal relationship with the pilot, I am not the slightest bit advocating that he be prosecuted. That is a judgement entirely for the police. However, I am certainly interested in the legal procedure that is likely to unfold in the coming months and years.

[The Old Fat One]

That is a judgement entirely for the police.

Our survey says....XXX wrong

Let me help

https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/resources/prosecution.html

[Mach Two]

Trim Stab, I don't think CM ever picked an argument with you. He just told you that you were wrong to take the debate in that direction at this stage. If he hadn't, I would have.

Yes, the decent is within the bounds of what little is know of his DA from the document you quote for reasons that have already been covered here.

You can be as interested as you like in any legal process, but going on line and saying you wonder if the pilot might be persecuted is rather like going to a F1 race and saying that you wonder if you might see someone crash - simply distasteful and pointless as you have already answered your own question. Investigations, Police, CPS. If you knew all that, why ask?

[Maybug]

That just about says it all I heartily agree!

[Martin the Martian]

CAA review terms of reference issued. I note that the MAA will read across any lessons learned into military display regs. It seems, however, that are very few persons with display flying experience on the governance groups.

Airshow Review Terms of Reference | Safety & Risk Management | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=17&pagetype=90&pageid=17113)

[Above The Clouds]

CAA review terms of reference issued. I note that the MAA will read across any lessons learned into military display regs. It seems, however, that are very few persons with display flying experience on the governance groups.


In essence the end of air displays as we have known them, if not eventually stopped all together.

[ICM]

For what it's worth, the commentator at today's Duxford show referred several times to restrictions that were in force due to the proximity of the M11. It was still a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon.

[Pittsextra]

CAA review terms of reference issued. I note that the MAA will read across any lessons learned into military display regs. It seems, however, that are very few persons with display flying experience on the governance groups.

Airshow Review Terms of Reference | Safety & Risk Management | Operations and Safety So these guys are going to report early in the new year, or rather well before any final AAIB report and all of the elements in that terms of reference already should have robust process around them so this seems utter idiocy.

Edited to add: The point being of course that this review then becomes a generic overview rather than specific to this accident which then one could question the motives of. i.e. is it simply to have a box ticked by the panel that provides a bill of health to the CAA process that was in place at the time? Of course that is a cynical view but if one looks at CAP403 flying display amendments here:-

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20403%20Flying%20displays%20and%20special%20events.pdf

and relate that to the AAIB's recommendations from the 2009 G-HURR accident and the CAA's response one wonders how things will get squared with the many parallel human factors cited as issues for this new review.

https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200910%20revised.pdf

Of course they may conclude that current rules are entirely reasonable and then actually nothing should change, although that would depend upon the confidence in decision making thus far.

[falcon900]

Pittsextra,
I am not so sure it is idiocy for the CAA report to be produced ahead of the AAIB report.
As has been alluded to elsewhere in this thread, it is possible, and in my view necessary, to split the analysis of this tragedy into two parts:
-What caused the aircraft to crash
-How there came to be a major road junction under it when it did.

Whilst I would expect the AAIB report to address both aspects, it does not seem necessary to wait for their report before addressing the wider issues related to event and display planning. Even from a purely practical perspective, it would be useful to event organisers to have some indication of any changes well before the display season commences.
As to what changes might arise from the CAA review, clearly we will have to wait and see. For sure there will be some, and I would take it as read that the type of language used in the relevant CAA documentation will become considerably more precise and prescriptive than it is at present. As it stands, I would hazard to suggest that it is rather "light" in places, and not least some way off the pace in terms of contemporary thinking and practice in relation to risk management.
That said, I would emphasise that I have no basis for suggesting that there was anything amiss with the planning of the Shoreham Air Show. It does however seem necessary that the actions of those responsible for the planning and risk assessment should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as those of the Pilot

[Pittsextra]

I have no doubt you are right and that the aims are to go some way down the road you suggest in addressing items you suggest being "light" re: risk management. I used the word idiocy for several reasons. The first is what path does that take you down, when many things aviation come down to good judgment?

Take the simple matter of base height, weight, temperature, speed and then factor in the requirement to practice your display. One can see the obvious interplay of factors and if you can't then no doubt your mentor DAE will and can. This isn't rocket science and with good judgment people keep themselves safe. Just how could you try and write a set of rules and regulations for all combinations?

The next question is what does it say about the confidence the CAA has in its own process thus far? When you look at the documentation around flying displays it is inconceivable that this accident would not have been prevented if you take a combination of good judgment and the existing documentation. I know that the hackles will be rising on many peoples neck but I'm doing nothing more sophisticated than taking the same view as fits the majority of all accidents. There are very few new ways to crash.

Finally what could or does this review hope to achieve that the existing format couldn't? Those engaged in this activity professionally have already made up there minds with some degree of certainty why this crash happened and whilst the AAIB report may throw a curved ball its more likely not to (Glasgow helicopter crash - does anyone really expect that to throw up a technical fault, or that it was fuel mismanagement?).

If the CAA wanted to throw resource at this it would be better to aim it toward the AAIB so that reports and follow up become more timely all IMO of course.

[Cows getting bigger]

Of course they may conclude that current rules are entirely reasonable and then actually nothing should change, although that would depend upon the confidence in decision making thus far.

My personal view is that the rules are either reasonable or not. If they are reasonable, then someone didn't apply (adequate) reason. The only thing which is certain is that it was entirely unreasonable for 11 people to die.

[APG63]

PittsExtra, you misunderstand the scope and purpose of the CAA review. It is triggered by the Shoreham accident, but not dealing with any specific causal factors pertaining to it. It will review all the supervisory, planning and safety aspects of public displays. This approach is measured, appropriate, timely and expected.

I haven't read the latest TOR for the review, but the early concept was that it should, among other things, conduct an exhaustive review to make sure that the regulations include sufficient measures to mitigate risk in order to reassure the public, but not pre-emptying or impinging on any findings that may or may not later arise from the AAIB investigation.

That is NOT to say that this is PR exercise. It is not. But it is a necessary step following Shoreham. There are areas that some have questioned in recent years, but not necessarily the ones mentioned by certain posters here. The supervision, mentoring and clearance methods are very tight and well respected.

[Pittsextra]

It is triggered by the Shoreham accident, but not dealing with any specific causal factors pertaining to it.

Well in so far that they don't have an official accepted cause but given the elements being investigated by this review when the AAIB investigation is complete it is unlikely that this review has not dealt with ANY of the specific causes.

I haven't read the latest TOR for the review, but the early concept was that it should, among other things, conduct an exhaustive review to make sure that the regulations include sufficient measures to mitigate risk in order to reassure the public, but not pre-emptying or impinging on any findings that may or may not later arise from the AAIB investigation.


and

The supervision, mentoring and clearance methods are very tight and well respected.

There is a huge contradiction with these two paragraphs without this sentence :-

There are areas that some have questioned in recent years, but not necessarily the ones mentioned by certain posters here.

So why not focus upon those items - whatever they maybe? Thus coming to the point more quickly and more effectively without dancing around the houses and having the wobbles over parts of the current process that until know everyone had the utmost faith in.

Of course the bigger question is if there had been questions over such fundamental areas what, who and why were the barriers to change.

The CAA needs to maintain its credibility and its current issue with "high energy" aerobatics is a worry.... When you pull into the vertical with "high energy" since when was that seen as a bad thing.... until now!

[APG63]

PittsExtra, I need to be be brief here before a morning meeting.

but given the elements being investigated by this review when the AAIB investigation is complete it is unlikely that this review has not dealt with ANY of the specific causes

The CAA review will report long before the conclusion of the AAIB investigation. If there is a further release before then that is relevant, they will include that in their considerations. That could significantly prolong the process. The plan now is not to wait for that report but to focus on matters arising from the accident (NOT specifics of causal factors - there is none identified at the moment).

There is a huge contradiction with these two paragraphs

And

So why not focus upon those items - whatever they maybe?

And

having the wobbles over parts of the current process that until know (sic) everyone had the utmost faith in

I didn't say wobbles, I did say not issues being posted here and I didn't say they were issues of safety concern. I get the impression you believe there are flaws in the processes that don't necessarily exist. The review will exmine all aspects anyway, which is always a healthy thing. Don't be disappointed if they don't find fault in the sytem.

Of course the bigger question is if there had been questions over such fundamental areas what, who and why were the barriers to change.

I have seen no barrier to change. Changes are implemented openly all the time. What barriers have you become aware of in the display world?

From your earlier post

Those engaged in this activity professionally have already made up there (sic) minds with some degree of certainty why this crash happened

The professionals I am engaged with most certainly have not.

I'm doing nothing more sophisticated than taking the same view as fits the majority of all accidents

No causal factors identified yet, we do not know which previous accidents to compare to.

Finally,

If the CAA wanted to throw resource at this it would be better to aim it toward the AAIB so that reports and follow up become more timely

The AAIB is independent of the CAA for very good reasons. The AAIB will call for any expert advice or assistance from wherever it considers necessary. The forensic investigation is not something you can simply throw people or money at to speed it up.

Must dash.

[212man]

I hope that when the CAA report back, they take on board some of the lessons that came from the manner in which they published CAP1145.....

CAP1145: Civil Aviation Authority ? Safety review of offshore public transport helicopter operations in support of the exploitation of oil and gas | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6088)

[Pittsextra]

APG, You said earlier that this is more than PR and yet the trigger for this review is entirely driven by their feeling that the public need some comfort. It isn't a surprise that there is a feeling of need to do that, but it is a surprise that they seem less confident in their own process.

I say this because the AAIB recommendation 2009-57 following the accident to G-HURR seemed to suggest that they were comfortable with the current operating requirements and that the forum for change would be the DAE seminars.

So now that isn't adequate? Hence I used the word "wobble", because whilst one outcome maybe to do nothing the very fact there is a review is telling.

The term barriers to change was simply a response to your own point here:-

That is NOT to say that this is PR exercise. It is not. But it is a necessary step following Shoreham. There are areas that some have questioned in recent years, but not necessarily the ones mentioned by certain posters here. The supervision, mentoring and clearance methods are very tight and well respected. I'm not able to put words in your mouth as to what those areas are and because you don't say its another one of those "riddle me this" type responses where people hold a view, could have some constructive input but hold back because they don't want to open themselves up, have some feeling of loyalty to those affected or whatever else.

I'm unclear as to why you think forensic investigation is not helped by better resourcing, be that human or capital.

Whilst it is not necessarily a bad thing to conduct a review one can't help but feel it is playing, in part, lip service and too little too late. Regardless of any final outcomes by the AAIB this has already highlighted many elements re: the configuration of the machine, conditions, peoples interpretation of heights as well as the sequence itself that should be obvious potential "gotcha's".

[APG63]

PittsExtra, I get the feeling you have some issues to debate, but I am unclear quite what they may be. I'll put my cards on the table now now and state that I do not and will not expend too much time and effort on any PPRuNe discussion - my initial post in reply to you was purely to help fill in some gaps in your understanding of what is going on (and it's lunchtime - so just deal with any typos in a rushed reply). I am not going to enter into a protracted discussion with you where you simply keep trying to use me to challenge AAIB and CAA processes to some undeclared end. If you care to tell me your role in either regulatory or display activities (and hence, your great interest in this) I could consider further discussion.

I shall reply to your previous response. This time please read and understand instead of drawing incorrect conclusions and trying to misconstrue my words in public.

APG, You said earlier that this is more than PR and yet the trigger for this review is entirely driven by their feeling that the public need some comfort. It isn't a surprise that there is a feeling of need to do that, but it is a surprise that they seem less confident in their own process.

NO! I said,

That is NOT to say that this is PR exercise I did not say it is "more than PR", I said it was NOT PR." Furthermore I did not say that "trigger for this review is entirely driven by their feeling that the public need some comfort.

it is a surprise that they seem less confident in their own process

How have you reached the conclusion that that is the case?

The term barriers to change was simply a response to your own point I cited no barriers - in fact I have explained that I see none. I simply stated that the processes are constantly questioned and reviewed.

Please forgive me for addressing your other points directly and in oerder. I intend no disprespect, it is simply expediency:

I'm not able to put words in your mouth [You seem to have no trouble trying] as to what those areas are and because you don't say its another one of those "riddle me this" type responses [No riddle at all if you are involved in display and airshow activities] where people hold a view, could have some constructive input but hold back because they don't want to open themselves up [my constructive input is for those involved in the activities in question, not for idle speculation on the interent - your speculative reaction and misinterpretation of what I have told you thus far is adequate illustration of why] ,have some feeling of loyalty to those affected or whatever else.[not sure what you're implying there]Finally:

I say this because the AAIB recommendation 2009-57 following the accident to G-HURR seemed to suggest that they were comfortable with the current operating requirements and that the forum for change would be the DAE seminars.I don't have AAIB reports at hand, but I think you're refering to the Hurricane crash at the same location. I believe there were four or five recomendations from that accident and all have long since been actioned. And, YES, the AAIB were generally comfortable with the "current operating requirement."

If you would domethe decency of declaring your professional interest in all this, I may continue. For now, I have better things to do.

[glad rag]

"I do not and will not expend too much time and effort on any PPRuNe discussion"

Perhaps a temporary hold could be put in place until some official information becomes available?

gr.

[Chris Scott]

Having followed this discussion from the beginning with interest, must say I’m dismayed after nearly two weeks’ absence to find it has descended into recrimination and arguments over aspects of litigation. Informed speculation on the causes of an accident may not be universally popular; on its possible legal implications rather less so. Maybe it’s time to try and buck that trend, and get back to the flying?

Despite lack of fast-jet or aerobatics credentials, I’m going to give in to temptation by attempting briefly to summarise what appear to be the key points leading up to this accident, and offer a couple of speculative ideas for the consideration of the real aeronauts here.

Whatever the pilot’s intention during the climb, at some point while still inverted after going over the top he became committed to completing a looping manoeuvre. The mystery, therefore, seems to be the discrepancy between the pitch-rate (low) and the surplus height available (none, or minimal) during the intermediate segment of the looping descent.

That leads one to ask: was the low pitch-rate intentional or unintentional?

If unintentional, was it caused by a flight-control problem or pilot incapacitation? If the former, was it a system failure or a restriction in the movement of the stick?

If intentional, did the pilot underestimate the height needed for such a recovery, or overestimate the height available? The former is implausible, which leaves the unlikely possibility that he simply did not know how little height there was.

We are told that there are three altimeters in the cockpit, but I imagine the pilot would only be using one of them for the display. Is it possible that distraction or dazzle might have prevented him from reading it while going over the top? Subsequently, if so, he might have been relying on visual cues to keep track of progress in the descending half-loop. Finally, could the normal visual cues at that early part of the descent have somehow misled him into overestimating his height?

[sharpend]

From Chris Scott:

'Despite lack of fast-jet or aerobatics credentials.....
Whatever the pilot’s intention during the climb, at some point while still inverted after going over the top he became committed to completing a looping manoeuvre.'

Well Chris, I have flown the Hunter solo and obviously perform aerobatics. Much speculation has been made of this tragic incident, but though we know a few facts, we do not know everything or why it occurred. Hopefully we will as I am told that the pilot is at home and in reasonably good shape. Obviously, that is merely hearsay and may not be true. Whatever, Chris, with regard to your comment 'while still inverted after going over the top he became committed' I'm sure that if he realised he was in trouble, he would have rolled the right way up and aborted the manoeuvre. Thus he was either incapacitated or unaware of the danger. Andy was a great pilot and obviously would not have performed any manoeuvre that he thought would end in disaster.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm sure that if he realised he was in trouble, he would have rolled the right way up and aborted the manoeuvre. Thus he was either incapacitated or unaware of the danger.

Or there was a technical malfunction, control restriction, distraction, physiological problem, etc, etc, etc. More assumption. Surprising after your correct comment about not knowing the facts or cause.

Andy was a great pilot and obviously would not have performed any manoeuvre that he thought would end in disaster.

WAS a great pilot?

[Chris Scott]

Hello sharpend, quote:
"Chris, with regard to your comment 'while still inverted after going over the top he became committed' I'm sure that if he realised he was in trouble, he would have rolled the right way up and aborted the manoeuvre. Thus he was either incapacitated or unaware of the danger."

Yes. In fact I was deliberately vague regarding the point at which rolling the right way up was no longer an escape option. I wrote: "...at some point while still inverted after going over the top he became committed to completing a looping manoeuvre."

At the beginning of what I described as the intermediate segment of the descent (with low pitch-rate) that option was still available, IMHO. So, unless there was a control problem, the low pitch-rate and not rolling upright can only be explained by your assertion above, which seems to cover the unintentional (incapacitation) and the intentional (over-estimation of height).

Can you fast-jet/aerobatic experts help me lay one remote possibility to rest? Early in this discussion, I posted (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/566533-hawker-hunter-loss-shoreham-airshow-8.html#post9092310) an observation about the dimensions of the Shoreham paved runway. IIRC, it's about a third of the width of a standard (instrument) runway and about half as long. Would it have been visible from the cockpit as the a/c was inverted and going over the top? And does my suggestion that the pilot might have been dazzled by the sun (in the south) and momentarily unable to read his altimeter make any sense?

[Reheat On]

Chris Scott
I posted an observation about the dimensions of the Shoreham paved runway. IIRC, it's about a third of the width of a standard (instrument) runway and about half as long.

You could of course look it up Sir

SHOREHAM AERODROME CHART - ICAO (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-C17CE7D9D65606544500DC67E8743D5B/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/NON_AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGKA_2-1_en_2014-07-24.pdf)



Would it have been visible from the cockpit as the a/c was inverted and going over the top?

Of course to his port side, for positioning purposes

And does my suggestion that the pilot might have been dazzled by the sun (in the south) and momentarily unable to read his altimeter make any sense?

Not really - dazzle is a hazard but does not stop you flying the aircraft

Disorientation is perhaps a separate aeromedical consideration

He approached into a high sun, rolled such that the sun came through his port side and after that the sun would have been a constant

1 visor later or a pair of sunnies and the sun would be a managed issue

It is an aeromedical fact that flying into sun and reading instrument data in house is a potential hazard. All experienced pilots are aware of this. Hence many checks on the run in before the sun might have played a part.

[Tailspin Turtle]

Chris Scott Would it have been visible from the cockpit as the a/c was inverted and going over the top? The airport in this instance would have been behind the pilot and all but impossible to see when going over the top inverted. At this point, you rely on landmarks somewhat below and out in front (directly away from the airport) to correct if necessary so as to be on line as you pull through into the vertical on the backside of the loop. The longer the runway, the slower the airplane, the quicker the runway itself becomes the reference for line and height (in a motor-powered glider, I was never not over the runway; the only concern was not drifting or angling over the deadline). In this case, short runway, fast airplane.

The actual dimensions of the runway do have to be taken into account when visually judging height during the pullout. This one was relatively short and narrow.

[sharpend]

Courtney... I agree all your comment :) Point taken.

Of course if you read my comments you will see that Andy is, not was... We wish him well and whatever his injuries, we hope he makes a full and speedy recovery.

And of course there could be a hundred mechanical reasons that led to this terrible accident. I personally am always concerned about loose articles and have found lots in Club aeroplanes, all of which could have resulted in jammed controls and an accident.

We just have to wait until ALL the facts are known.

[Courtney Mil]

With you there, Sharpend.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Reheat On,
Thanks for your insights on managing sunlight during aeros - rather more complex considerations than in an airliner cockpit. (We used to use the Daily Telegraph on the Afrika Corps in my youth, if the stick-on meal-tray lining wasn't big enough).

I now realise that the sun would have been well under the port side at the top of the manoeuvre, so perhaps not a dazzle factor at that point? As you seem to imply, disorientation can affect any of us without warning, for example during sudden head movements.

That link to the Shoreham aerodrome chart doesn't work for me. The only paved runway dimension I could get before my original post was the runway length, so I assessed the width by measuring it on the satellite picture. Its proportions are not dissimilar from a 10,000-foot instrument runway. But I'm not suggesting that a runway is the only visual cue to height assessment, as Cows Getting Bigger might remind me.

[ORAC]

Airfield chart included:

Pilot Information for Aerodrome Operations 25th May to 12th June 2015 (http://www.flybrighton.com/pilotinfo)

[Chris Scott]

Thanks ORAC,

18m x 1036m makes it roughly two-fifths (40%) of the width and length of a typical provincial airport runway, such as Turnhouse's 06/24 (46m x 2556m). Many main runways at RAF master aerodromes would be comparable with Turnhouse 06/24, I think.

[Union Jack]

18m x 1036m makes it roughly two-fifths (40%) of the width and length of a typical provincial airport runway, such as Turnhouse's 06/24 (46m x 2556m).

If I may raise a point of order on a very serious thread, and whilst I readily accept the technical point regarding runway length and width, Turnhouse should not be described as a provincial airport, since it serves the capital of Scotland, by definition the very antithesis of a province.:=

Glasgow on the other hand.....

Jack

[Courtney Mil]

But I'm not suggesting that a runway is the only visual cue to height assessment

I wouldn't suggest that either. The top gate is measured using the altimeter, not visual cues. On the way down the altimeter is the main gauge too until the very late stages; even then it's the King. I think I see where you're going with this, but I would consider it unlikely. Interesting thinking, though.

[Trim Stab]

Trim Stab, I don't think CM ever picked an argument with you. He just told you that you were wrong to take the debate in that direction at this stage. If he hadn't, I would have.

Yes, the decent is within the bounds of what little is know of his DA from the document you quote for reasons that have already been covered here.

You can be as interested as you like in any legal process, but going on line and saying you wonder if the pilot might be persecuted is rather like going to a F1 race and saying that you wonder if you might see someone crash - simply distasteful and pointless as you have already answered your own question. Investigations, Police, CPS. If you knew all that, why ask?

It still seems to me a perfectly legitimate question to ask why he started to pull up into a vertical aerobatic manouvre at 45 degree to the display line at 200ft.

The AAIB report describes his DA as:

a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard category aerobatic manoeuvres.

Cap 403 describes Standard category aerobatics as:

6.1 Standard aerobatic displays
 Lines – Mainly horizontal or up to 45° climbing/diving lines in normal flight.
 Turns – Turns through 90° to 360° in normal flight.
 Spins – Erect Spins of one turn, with entry and exit in normal flight.
 Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal entry and exit.
 Loops and Eights – Inside circular loops with normal entry and exit.
 Combinations – Half an inside loop followed by a half roll (‘Roll off the Top’.) Five eighths of an inside loop combined with a half roll on diving exit Line (‘Half Cuban 8’). 45° climbing line followed by a half roll and pull through to level flight (‘Reverse Half Cuban 8’)
 Rolls – Slow, aileron or barrel rolls on horizontal line, or where combined with a combination manoeuvre listed above, on the diving or climbing line.


To quote from the AAIB preliminary report:

executing a Derry turn2 to the left and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about 45o. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left, becoming almost fully inverted at the apex of the manoeuvre at a height of approximately 2,600 ft amsl.

So was his trajectory at 200ft at 45 deg to display line a "low pass"? Or was it the start of a Standard category aerobatic manoeuvre, below his DA of 500ft?

[Background Noise]

500 ft is for recovery from aerobatics. It does not matter what height they are started from - provided the gate is for recovery at the stipulated height.

The military do exactly the same thing - not that there are that many now, but most arrive at 100 ft and then pull up into a manoeuvre.

RAF Typhoon Display Team - Display Sequence (http://www.raf.mod.uk/typhoondisplay/displayinfo/displaysequence.cfm)

[aox]

Getting a bit low one day in a glider, I looked for potential places to land, in case I continued not finding any lift.

Right below was a lovely looking airstrip. But too small. It was for models. I wasn't fooled. And I didn't need a glance at the altimeter to save me from being fooled.

I seriously do not believe that someone's height perception is primarily derived from the perceived dimensions of the runway.

This pilot would have flown displays at a variety of sites in the previous days, some airfields some not, and several by the coast.

[thing]

I personally am always concerned about loose articles and have found lots in Club aeroplanes

I always have a very good poke around any aircraft also. Only the other day I found a French loaf underneath the pax/co pilots seat and I kid you not.

I seriously do not believe that someone's height perception is primarily derived from the perceived dimensions of the runway.

Neither do I. I've never bought the 'narrow/wide/short/long' argument. If you don't know what a thousand or five hundred foot above the ground looks like then it's time to hang up the flying boots.

[Fortissimo]

Trim Stab

So was his trajectory at 200ft at 45 deg to display line a "low pass"? Or was it the start of a Standard category aerobatic manoeuvre, below his DA of 500ft?

I think you are banging the wrong drum here. If the vertical trajectory was more than 30 deg nose up at 200 ft you might have a point, but the issue is
the stage at which a manoeuvre becomes aerobatic. If you keep aileron applied you will keep rolling (= aerobatics) but if you stop the input after 45 deg, so will the roll (= normal turn). Same with pitch, however rapid. A 4g pitch to 30 deg nose up is not aerobatic. If, as is commonly done, you continue into more extreme attitudes and you are above your DA minimum, you are legal.

[Pittsextra]

Was it North Weald QNH or Shoreham QFE set at the beginning of the display approx. 300' difference.
Is it? I read NW QNH at 1014 and Shoreham QNH 1013, with Shoreham on the sea QFE/QNH is comme ci comme sa?

Fortissimo - how are we judging 30deg pitch, both pilot and FDD on the ground? Accepting that in a Typhoon with a better than 1:1 thrust to weight you can just burn more fuel and make any error come good but when you don't have that luxury how does that methodology become repeatable and then throw in changes in temp, weight and ability to practice in all these different configurations.....

[Above The Clouds]

AH may have already completed a loose article check during the inverted portion of his flight parallel to the coast prior to commencing his display.

Good to hear AH and others with injuries are recovering. I wish them all well soon.

[Courtney Mil]

Pitts,

You keep banging on about height, weight and temperature. Let me put that issue to rest for you.

Shoreham Airfield is 7 feet above sea level. Given the QNH on the day, no problems with pressure altitude. Display altitude was not a performance factor in this accident.

The aircraft was filled to full deliberately because of the need to transit, hold, display, transit, recover. To get from North Weald to Shoreham, avoiding that big bit of airspace between them called London, would have meant something in the region of 150nms at reasonably low altitude. Including SUTTO, transit and hold he would have burnt at least 2500lbs, which you mean the external tanks were empty and internals no longer full (mental dead reckoning on my part and we don't know how long the hold was). It would have been normal to get airborne from the display location with full internals and display after a short hold with similar fuel to this event). This was not a heavyweight display; he was flying the aircraft at or near to the usual all up weight.

Aircraft fit: G-BXFI was always flown with the external tanks fitted; it is not common practice to remove and fit the tanks. Configuration was the same as flown for all AH's displays and practices. Configuration is not an issue.

Temperature: 28 degrees is not an unusually hot day for jet performance and only 3-5 degrees above the average for that area in the previous two months (depending on which Met Office data you use). Close enough to the conditions he was used to in recent displays/practices. Temperature on the day was not a significant factor. Combine that with what i said earlier about pressure altitude, you can deduce that density altitude was not a factor.

Within the bounds of the limited information available, it is reasonable to ASSUME that AH's decision to fill to full was sound and did not lead to abnormal auw at the time of the display. Aircraft fit was normal and was the same as he had flown previously during displays and practices. The met conditions on the day were not significantly different from those he had flown in recently.

Another drum that doesn't yield a meaningful tune.

[Courtney Mil]

The other drum being repeatedly banged here is entry height for the manoeuvre in question. This has been addressed several times since it was first raised, most recently by Background Noise and Fortissimo.

Trim Stab, you are still making incorrect quotes about DA and these may be affecting your judgement on this matter. For example,

The AAIB preliminary report states that he commenced the display at 200' rather than 500' which was authorised

The Special Bulletin only stated the entry height, it did not go on to state anything about "rather than 500' which was authorised". It actually states

and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about 45o. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left

I hope you now understand that the minimum entry height is not specified for that manoeuvre other than his overall display minimum.

As for being off the display line at entry, that is precisely the point of that manoeuvre. On the day it was 45 because of local restrictions.

In terms of energy, there is no problem with commencing a vertical manoeuvre from an altitude lower than the exit height provided the entry speed is appropriate. There is no evidence to suggest that AH flew that part of his display any differently on this occasion from previous displays or practices, with the possible exception of the amount of roll in the vertical to account for the different approach angle.

Those looking for fault or any deviation from authorisation and possible repercussions will now be able to look for something else to latch onto and beat to death. Your blood lust unsatisfied, you will doubtless be very disappointed.

The AAIB may well find that the entry height was a factor and may well recommend a change to the practice. Or they may not. We don't know and we shall have to wait. An interim report is a possibility in this case so it may not be that long.

[Pittsextra]

CM - The QNH point was a reply to a post by Above the clouds, which he has since deleted, and as you see from my reply I agree with your point.

Height, weight, temp, you've provided a view and one can respect that, i don't know how often, in what aircraft weight or config, or when he practiced, hence the question. You seem to have clarified this.

Those looking for fault or any deviation from authorisation and possible repercussions will now be able to look for something else to latch onto and beat to death. Your blood lust unsatisfied, you will doubtless be very disappointed. I don't think that is what people are doing, they are just asking the question and actually given your final paragraph if the AAIB do recommend change would you then say that such a change is wrong and unnecessary?

[overstress]

Density altitude was about 1300', calculated from the info above... or about 95% of standard air density... Courtney, it can't be completely disregarded, surely?

[Courtney Mil]

Pitts, My comment about QNH had nothing to do with your mention of it earlier. It was to illustrate that pressure altitude (and, later, density altitude) was not a significant factor regarding aircraft performance. If you are not familiar with the terms I recommend Aircraft Performance: Theory and Practice by Martin Eshelby.

[Pittsextra]

In all of the sneery remarks what ultimately seems to be over looked is that when you stitch together all of the comments you could come to the conclusion that nothing was wrong.

[Courtney Mil]

Not completely disregarded, Overstress, but unlikely to have have been significant as it would have been close to the air densities he was used to during the summer. That was my point; the conditions on the day were not significantly different to those AH was used to at the time. A 4% reduction in air density from ICAO standard is not enough to change a Hunter's performance to the degree indicated in this incident.

[overstress]

I agree, he'd already been airborne for some while so he would have had a good feel for the conditions. Surprising how density altitude creeps up on you though especially in my day job, not so much here in UK however.

[smarthawke]

Have I missed the bit where 'Pittsextra' stated his/her connection/credentials with aviation - apart from the nom de PPRuNe....?

[Pittsextra]

No you didn't miss it but on the basis I could be a 12 year old or a NASA rocket scientist why would you believe either just because it's posted here? If the issue is less with what gets said than who says it then that's more a reflection on those taking issue.

Let's not forget that the first point of issue was that the figure being flown was a 1/4 clover. Then I got pulled up about starting height - although that person who took issue has hedged the response to suggest it might be a point of interest by the AAIB.

In the past I've also been moaned at for suggesting that the AAIB should communicate more effectively. Seems the AAIB have some sympathy with that view.

Like I said it's not what gets said its who says it that causes the issue.

[Above The Clouds]

Pittsextra
Like I said it's not what gets said its who says it that causes the issue.


It depends how it was said by who says it.

[Stanwell]

Amen to that. :ok:

[Chris Scott]

Hello Courtney Mil:
"The top gate is measured using the altimeter, not visual cues. On the way down the altimeter is the main gauge too until the very late stages; even then it's the King. I think I see where you're going with this, but I would consider it unlikely."

Thanks for that. I wouldn't want you, aox, thing or anyone else to think I'm offering height misconception caused by the scaled-down runway at Shoreham as a primary factor in this accident. But, if (for whatever reason) the pilot was at any stage disoriented, and if he had then seen the runway, it might not have helped in sorting things out.

Quote from Union Jack:
"Turnhouse should not be described as a provincial airport, since it serves the capital of Scotland, by definition the very antithesis of a province.
"Glasgow on the other hand....."

Quite, but it worked as an attention-checker! Yes, and Abbotsinch (or Renfrew, as one of my old skippers persisted in calling it) Rwy 05/23 (46m x 2665m) fits the bill even better. As for "provincial" airfields, how about Aldergrove's 07/25 (45m x 2780m)?

[Maybug]

Hello Courtney Mil:
"The top gate is measured using the altimeter, not visual cues. On the way down the altimeter is the main gauge too until the very late stages; even then it's the King. I think I see where you're going with this, but I would consider it unlikely."

Thanks for that. I wouldn't want you, aox, thing or anyone else to think I'm offering height misconception caused by the scaled-down runway at Shoreham as a primary factor in this accident. But, if (for whatever reason) the pilot was at any stage disoriented, and if he had then seen the runway, it might not have helped in sorting things out.

Quote from Union Jack:
"Turnhouse should not be described as a provincial airport, since it serves the capital of Scotland, by definition the very antithesis of a province.
"Glasgow on the other hand....."

Quite, but it worked as an attention-checker! Yes, and Abbotsinch (or Renfrew, as one of my old skippers persisted in calling it) Rwy 05/23 (46m x 2665m) fits the bill even better. As for "provincial" airfields, how about Aldergrove's 07/25 (45m x 2780m)?

Runway 23/05 could add to the laundry bill in a 25 knot crosswind when flying a BAC111 in the 60s in a dark and dirty night before the new runway was built.

[strake]

And so it starts...

Shoreham air disaster pilot Andy Hill is seen for the first time since he left hospital | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3256590/Shoreham-air-disaster-pilot-seen-time-left-hospital-three-weeks-ago-emerges-police-not-spoken-fatal-crash.html)

[salad-dodger]

And so it starts...
And so what starts Strake? If by that mean you mean the search for answers, then I suspect for many people that started right after seeing the accident or when they were told family members had been killed or injured.

Let's not forget what happened here.

S-D

[strake]

Actually, I meant the trial by media.

[wiggy]

strake

I meant the trial by media.

+1 to your sentiments.

I'm not sure why, 4 weeks after the accident, AH being out in public is worthy of being front page news. It would be very interesting to see how much time, money and effort went into getting that photo...

All a bit tacky and it get's us no nearer establishing what went wrong....

[NutLoose]

The comments on the link showing the pilot out and about are heart warming, one hopes he reads those rather than the bile the Daily Fail writes.

[A and C]

What is about to start is the press hounding the guy, his family and friends who will be unable to go out of the house without some low life photographer or reported stuffing a microphone under their noses and misquoting anything they say.

That is without the ambulance chasing lawyers in search of a quick buck.

[handleturning]

Don't think it's unreasonable for the press to publish that picture, tbh I'm delighted to see him walking. Obviously, the text regarding police interviews is not needed. Am sure arrangements have been made to interview Andy at the appropriate time.

[Maybug]

Any evidence would be invalid unless he is pronounced medically fit, one would hope the press will be discouraged from harassing him in the meantime. He looks totally haunted, for God's sake have some compassion and leave him to fully recuperate, one would hope the AAIB should be the first to interview him and determine any possible negligence before any further interest by the police.

[Chris Scott]

The Mail Online article seems to be factually correct, and the fact that Mr Hill has left hospital and apparently able to walk unaided is good news. I cannot see anything wrong in reporting it, and by media standards the article is not sensationalist.

Everyone is different, but I doubt that naming and describing the victims again will necessarily increase the pain of their loved ones. In bereavement, recognition can even be preferable to silence.

Publishing a current photograph of Andy Hill is quite another matter. Whatever the cause of the crash, it was an accident of which he was himself a victim. Unlike a politician or show-biz personality, for example, he has never courted or enjoyed publicity, so any hounding for interview and/or photography is completely unjustified. Unfortunately, it provides valuable revenue for the cash-strapped medium concerned, and we have just contributed to that by clicking on that link.

[cats_five]

Skimmed most of the comments, which are nearly all very sympathetic to AH.

[langleybaston]

I should bloody well hope so. No amount of good wishes will dilute his angst.

In a tiny tiny way, my father's experience whilst driving gives me some insight. Driving at his usual sober pace in a built-up area, a child's soap-box cart/ bogey [call it what you will] shot out of a side road, having had benefit of a long steep hill. Dad's car hit the cart. The boy was injured.

My dad visited and visited in hospital. The lad made a complete recovery.

I don't think dad did, his driving became even more careful, even apprehensive.

These experiences never go away.

[airpolice]

The comments on the link showing the pilot out and about are heart warming

"Out and about"

I'm not sure that's correct. For all we know he might have been photographed
coming out of the doctor's surgery, rather than socialising, or trying to get back to normality.

This is a good example of why we should not be deciding what caused anything, when we don't have many facts. The camera may or may not lie, but it can certainly mislead.

[Mike51]

Since when was it the role of the AAIB to "determine any possible negligence" Maybug?

[Cows getting bigger]

Publishing a current photograph of Andy Hill is quite another matter. Whatever the cause of the crash, it was an accident of which he was himself a victim.

I don't think anyone is in an authoritative position to either confirm or deny that assertion. Perhaps we should all continue to sit on the fence?

[ZeBedie]

The poor man looks aged beyond his years. I note the DM describe him as a former BA pilot. That can't be so, can it? Unless he resigned?

[smarthawke]

Many weeks ago, various aspects of the 'media' seemed to decide to abbreviate 'former RAF pilot and BA captain' to 'former BA captain'.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from me:
"Whatever the cause of the crash, it was an accident of which he was himself a victim."

Quote from Cows getting bigger:
"I don't think anyone is in an authoritative position to either confirm or deny that assertion."

Which assertion are you questioning, and why?

[NutLoose]

Airpolice, I was just being generic as one does not know why and where, but he was out of his home and moving about, hence the expression, one did not mean to infer anything negative, I agree with what people say though, he appears to be carrying the world on his shoulders.... Poor guy :sad:

[Jayand]

It's a completely understandable news story, it was a very big, public news event just a few weeks ago and the fact that the pilot involved is "up and about" is very newsworthy, and of course very pleasing.
You can call it "trial by media" or you could say it is a pertinent question.
One would hope that he has at least been questioned at great length by the AAIB by now if not the police, all too often in these scenario's the investigators only have eye witness and mobile phone evidence as sadly in many cases the crew perish. In an aircraft with no flight data recorder I would imagine the pilot's testimony would have been a vital priority.
If he hasn't been interviewed then somebody should be asking why?

[NutLoose]

I believe they also have footage from the cockpit video cameras. one would be surprised if in an incident like this he actually remembers a lot about it.

[Jet_Fan]

Not passed medically fit to be interviewed apparently, so he won't have spoken to the AAIB either.

[mrangryofwarlingham]

Just a thought. I wonder if the Privilege against Self-Incrimination is available to relevant persons when being interviewed by the AAIB. I can think of good public policy reasons why AAIB should be allowed access to all evidence and to obtain it using compulsion if required. Am not suggesting it has or has not been invoked in the current case.

[overstress]

The media can't help themselves in publishing sneak photos such as these, no good can come of it, except for their circulation figures.

Often in cases of car or aircraft accident causing brain injury there will be retrograde amnesia. The subject cannot recall events just prior to the accident. There would be no point in interviewing someone who is suffering this type of amnesia. My father fell off a roof at work, landed on his head and was in a coma for a week. All he remembers about the day was having breakfast, then leaving for work.

[EAP86]

MAO Warlingham: interviews by the AAIB aren't taken under oath so the issue of a Privilege against Self-Incrimination is moot. Evidence to be used in court by the Police or HSE is taken under oath and the same questions may be asked then. I believe the answers aren't always the same though...

EAP

[Courtney Mil]

Unfortunately, the Rogers Hoyle appeal finding has changed things badly. Anyone giving evidence or making judgements as experts will always now be aware that their words will probably end up echoing in the places that the AAIB has always tried to to stay away from. There is a big difference between giving evidence to try to prevent an accident happening again without blame and finding your words in a litigation case. I suspect a single claim has changed the landscape at the expense of aviation and marine safety.

[KenV]

MAO Warlingham: interviews by the AAIB aren't taken under oath so the issue of a Privilege against Self-Incrimination is moot.

I don't pretend to know UK law, but in US law ANYthing you say (whether under oath or not) can be used against you in a court of law. So without special protections, any statement made to the FAA, the NTSB, or any other investigating body can be used against you. And that is why in the US there are special protections put in place prohibiting the use of such statements in a court of law.

[Legalapproach]

EAP
Neither interviews with the AAIB nor the police are taken "under oath" as you put it. Evidence to be used in court is not taken under oath in either police or HSE investigations.

Witness statements taken during a police or HSE investigation contain a declaration as to the truth and interviews are conducted under caution.

Live evidence in court is given under oath.

Since Rogers v Hoyle, any person being interviewed by the AAIB where there is a suspicion of negligence on their part would be well advised to seek expert legal advice before doing so and should without doubt be legally represented in any police or CAA investigation by a solicitor who is a specialist in this field.

The position with AAIB reports is that at present they are admissible in civil proceedings but not in criminal proceedings. An interview with a pilot is annex 13 material and not in itself to be disclosed without a court order. Such a statement has not as yet been ruled admissible. The difficulty that arises is that summaries or extracts of the interview often appear in AAIB reports and the contents of the interview may have some bearing on the opinions formed and the conclusions reached.

[wiggy]

any person being interviewed by the AAIB where there is a suspicion of negligence on their part would be well advised to seek expert legal advice before doing so and should without doubt be legally represented in any police or CAA investigation by a solicitor who is a specialist in this field.

Can't comment of the specifics but AH has/is being given a lot of support by his professional association. That association offers a legal service/legal advice.

[Jet_Fan]

any person being interviewed by the AAIB where there is a suspicion of negligence on their part would be well advised to seek expert legal advice before doing so and should without doubt be legally represented in any police or CAA investigation by a solicitor who is a specialist in this field. People could also be well advised to man-up and own up when they know they are in the wrong.

[Maybug]

Since when was it the role of the AAIB to "determine any possible negligence" Maybug?

I agree Mike but they can comment on human error as a factor. I am sure that BALPA will be a source of comfort to Andy let's hope this does not drag on too long both for Andy and the families and victims of this sad accident.

[Two's in]

http://www.aaib.gov.mn/uploads/50ff3ff2-ecd8-4f88-b84c-467c0a0101be-9756_p4_cons_en.pdf

3.2.6 The causes should be formulated in a way
which, as much as practicable, minimizes the implication of
blame or liability. Nevertheless, the accident investigation
authority should not refrain from reporting a cause merely
because blame or liability might be inferred from the
statement of that cause.

[Jayand]

How utterly ridiculous, if the AAIB find evidence that a pilot was at fault then they should be able to simply say so.

[Wander00]

The title of this thread continues to trouble me a little - given the scale of the accident, it seems to dwell on the aeroplane rather than the human tragedy. Might "something like "Accident at Shoreham Airshow" be more appropriate. Late in the day I know, and original title probably OK until the scale of loss of life became apparent.

[Courtney Mil]

People could also be well advised to man-up and own up when they know they are in the wrong.

Once again someone has appeared here with a commendable sound bite. If only life were as simple as that. If only the cause of every accident were a matter of a single fault.

You declare yourself as "jet fan". What a shame your enthusiasm doesn't stretch as far as the people that fly them.

If your comment is in context with the subject of the thread, then perhaps you would like to explain who you think needs to "man up".

How utterly ridiculous, if the AAIB find evidence that a pilot was at fault then they should be able to simply say so.

Then you need to understand the role of the AAIB and the purpose of improving flight safety. You might wish to put your understandable misunderstanding of the purpose of flight safety organisations aside for a moment and consider the roles of the various organisations involved and how best they achieve their aims.

[JointShiteFighter]

Again, Courtney, I agree.

I am absolutely disgusted with the way some so-called aviation enthusiasts have ridiculed Andy, without knowing the full facts. I am also disgusted with the media. He appears to be physically back on his feet, but anybody with half a brain would understand that mentally, he still has many years of recovery time, if he ever manages to recover at all. That doesn't stop the media from trying to be the first to publish a pathetic story.

[Davef68]

It's good to see that he is recovering physically. I'd imagine mentally will be much much harder.

I still find it incredible that he survived the accident.

[EAP86]

Apologies to all: I said "under oath", I meant "under caution".

EAP

[APG63]

I would be cautious when new people register with sites such as these with obviously polarised views on this kind of issue. I don't wish to be unkind, but this does happen at times like this. Maybe another reason for being guarded about careless opinions.

Courtney Mil, I agree with both your points, but I suspect you will either need to explain your points (again) to those you quote or expand on your post. Most of us get it, but the visitors here may not.

Good luck.

[Pontius Navigator]

People could also be well advised to man-up and own up when they know they are in the wrong.

Your attitude harks back to the days of Dixon of Dock Green "fair cop Guv, you've got me dead to rights."

In today's world few people hold their hands up.

In this case, there will be many factors contributing to this accident and holding up one's hand prematurely could actually, in many people's minds, inhibit determination of the most likely cause.

[Jayand]

I get it fine Pontious, my point is that I believe findings from an investigation shouldn't be dressed up, why not point fingers if that is their opinion, based on their findings.
At some point the findings and the investigators maybe called upon and used in court proceedings, they could be asked from their findings if they considered X,Y OR Z to be at fault. Why not just say so in their report?

[Pontius Navigator]

Jayland, would not a declaration of blame by an expert official body not be taken by an impartial jury as de facto evidence and thus create undue bias?

[BBK]

Jayand

My understanding is that the AAIB do not attribute blame and are very careful not to do so. They report the circumstances that led to the accident and may make recommendations but they are not, repeat not, regulators. IMHO that is why they are trusted by the professional aviation community.

The role of the CAA and the police is quite different and for good reason. What has caused disquiet is the idea that evidence gathered by the AAIB for its technical investigation may be used in a prosecution. This has been discussed elsewhere on pprune at great detail if you are genuinely interested. Sorry for the thread drift.

Back on the thread. It's welcome news that AH is recovering. I recently flew with an ex colleague of his and he spoke very highly of him. Not forgetting the families of those also affected by this awful tragedy one of whom is a friend of a friend.

BBK

[JointShiteFighter]

Jayland, would not a declaration of blame by an expert official body not be taken by an impartial jury as de facto evidence and thus create undue bias?

I agree. I can't fathom how this is so difficult for the general public to comprehend. Lots have been asking for the AAIB to state exactly who/what was at fault, but this would be a flaw in the administration of justice and has the potential to result in a person being wrongly convicted, and then allows the potential for a person to have their conviction overturned at appeal when in fact, they should have remained a convicted criminal.*

*I am not suggesting that this is the case for Andy, as I do not know enough of the facts to make such a sweeping statement, however, a person has the right to a fair trial. This then gives the families of victims some form of closure when the person concerned has been dealt with in the best way possible, and there was no doubt that they were guilty.

[Jayand]

OK, say for example then a civil or crown court case was brought againtst a pilot involved in a fatal crash, who gives expert evidence to the court? Would it not be the AAIB? and if so how do they answer a question of liability?
If a crash was and I'm talking hypothetically here caused entirely by pilot error how do the AAIB word there report without saying as such??
I can understand the prejudicial worries, but if that is the case then surely they should say nothing until court, unless court action isn't needed.

[charliegolf]

and if so how do they answer a question of liability?

By omission? Would they not simply state, that their extensive investigation could identify no mechanical or technical failure; failure in maintenance, or external factor such as ATC or weather.

CG

[Pontius Navigator]

In a report you would present the facts and if inevitable that might appear open and shut case - the undercarriage was found to be fully serviceable and there was no evidence of malfunction.

In court "I put it to you, is it possible the pilot failed to lower the undercarriage?"

"Yes"

"No further questions your honour"

It would then be left to the defence to elicit many alternative explanations.

The difference is cross examination in open forum.

[pasta]

Hypothetically, what happens if that pilot decides to save the AAIB a lot of work and tells them, "I completely forgot to lower the undercarriage, don't know what I was thinking"? Or if a mechanic states that he omitted to tighten a hydraulic connector correctly, causing the undercarriage to malfunction?

Does the report merely state that there was no evidence of malfunction (in the first case) or that the connector was examined and "appeared" to have been incorrectly tightened?

Not suggesting any parallels with the cause of this incident, but genuinely curious as to how far the AAIB go to spare the blushes of an individual who admits some liability?

[ExRAFRadar]

Surely that is a no brainer

"The cause of the accident was the failure of the pilot to lower the undercarriage"

Or am I missing something?

[Fortissimo]

Yes, you are missing something.

Finding, the aircraft landed with the landing gear retracted.

Finding, the pilot did not lower the landing gear.

Finding, the pilot was distracted by the interview with HR just before flight to discuss his sickness record as part of the redundancy selection process etc etc

You get the drift...

[ExRAFRadar]

Not being argumentative but in your example surely the first is a statement of fact, not a cause and the last is mitigation of the cause not the cause itself.

Eidited to add: I appreciate the example you used was a much simplified example to make your point and I have read enough accident reports to know that the 'Swiss Cheese' model is much to blame and not a specific single event.

[Barcli]

There isnt a day when something about this accident is not on the news, so I find it a little strange that he still hasnt been questioned - especially given the newspaper photos of him " up and about " ?

[Courtney Mil]

Barcli, you may wish to read the recent discussion here about that very question. No matter how much the media clatters about it, it doesn't make his interview any more or less imperative. The investigations are run by the AAIB and the Police, not the news rags.

[KenV]

....so I find it a little strange that he still hasnt been questioned

A sincere question: how do you know he has not been questioned? Is that an assumption or a known fact?

[Mach Two]

Probably both, KenV. An assumption of a known fact because it was in the Daily Mail a few days ago so it must have been true then and there hasn't been a different statement of known fact since then so it must still be true.

Or maybe...

[aox]

What is about to start is the press hounding the guy, his family and friends who will be unable to go out of the house without some low life photographer or reported stuffing a microphone under their noses and misquoting anything they say.

That is without the ambulance chasing lawyers in search of a quick buck.

I'm slightly surprised that the pilot would have been near his own home, rather than staying with friends or family.

edit: to avoid the press, just in case anyone thinks I mean investigators or police.

[Pontius Navigator]

Aox, given the lack of coverage was he hounded?

[wiggy]

I'm slightly surprised that the pilot would have been near his own home, rather than staying with friends or family.

I doubt it make any difference, the press have their sources and on past form they are quite good at establishing the whereabouts of pilots involved in accidents and their friends and family if they want to.

[FleurDeLys]

Perhaps any pause before interview is to allow those investigating ( be it AAIB or Police) to gather as much factual data from wreckage, maintenance/operating/logbook records, video, eye-witnesses, R/T recordings etc as possible to guide their line of questioning.

If you already know the answers to many questions, it helps you to differentiate between those questions where you are trying to illicit confirmation from the pilot, as distinct from those where you are exploring the things that only he knows: what did he see, think, decide and do in that cockpit on that day.

Edited to add. Alternatively, like many involved in major traumatic incidents, he may have no memory at all of what happened in the period during and immediately leading up to the accident. Totally different environment, but some time ago a motorcyclist ran into the back of my car at speed while I was stationary, waiting to turn right: he was up and walking in the hospital 24 hours later but, to this day, he has no recollection of the accident, or the few minutes leading up to it. No amount of questioning will illicit any useful evidence from him.

[APG63]

For those with a genuine interest rather than those seeking the more sensational speculation, the October 2015 AAIB Bulletin is just being released. It will contain the Special Bulletin as seen previously, but no further information on the Shoreham Accident.

[Wander00]

Anything yet on the tragic Gnat accident?

[Martin the Martian]

CAA progress report on airshow review published:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1351UKCivilAirDisplayReviewProgressReport.pdf

[airpolice]

Shoorly Shum Mishtake Mish Munnypenny, not ALL Hunters are grounded.

In the immediate aftermath of the Shoreham tragedy, we promptly introduced temporary precautionary measures to:

 ground all Hawker Hunter aircraft;
 restrict similar jet aircraft display manoeuvres over land; and
 implement three additional risk assessment criteria on all future civil air displays, some of which have resulted in further precautionary safety restrictions being put in place.

These restrictions remain in place and will do so until further notice

[Martin the Martian]

All Hunters operating on a G-registration. The HHA aircraft are operated on the military register.

[Never Fretter]

Oh dear Shoreham air crash report finds jet 'had expired parts' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35153660)

[just another jocky]

ATC - yr link doesn't work (for me).

[Above The Clouds]

JaJ, try this one.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5677d6bfed915d144f000000/S4-2015_G-BXFI.pdf

Unfortunately very similar to the "Thunder City" accident.

[Ddraig Goch]

Try this: http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-21/shoreham-air-crash-jet-had-out-of-date-parts/

[Alber Ratman]

A can of worms being opened slowly. Was the airframe "Airworthy?" Maybe not in the AAIBs view? Seat carts out of date is straight out of the Thunder City accident..

[NutLoose]

But as he didn't appear to have used it, is it relevant pertaining to the accident.

[Ddraig Goch]

CAA response to AAIB Shoreham report above:

http://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-statement-on-AAIB-special-bulletin/ (http://http://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-statement-on-AAIB-special-bulletin/)

They seem quite dismissive about the maintainence (AMOC) compliance!

[Hangarshuffle]

May not have caused the accident, but it wont read well in court for the operator.

[Alber Ratman]

The can of worms seems to be the maintenance documentation, the inspection work that wasn't carried out that should have been or a variation applied for, life expired parts being fitted, no variation applied for and items not replaced when replacements did arrive. The airframe was not airworthy to the standards and procedures deemed necessary to the MPD the airframe was issued the permit to fly against in the eyes of the AAIB. The CAA disagree as stated in their reply. Someone is wrong somewhere. I suspect more worms will be found in other facets of this accident.

[ivor toolbox]

In its simplest terms out of date parts and not replacing them when available invalidates the Permit to Fly , with invalidated Permit aeroplane should not have been flying that day, so yes it does affect the accident, if only that it may have been another aeroplane on the day.



Ttfn

[Above The Clouds]

ivor toolbox
In its simplest terms out of date parts and not replacing them when available invalidates the Permit to Fly , with invalidated Permit aeroplane should not have been flying that day, so yes it does affect the accident, if only that it may have been another aeroplane on the day.


I can see the insurance companies washing their hands already.

[Two's in]

But as he didn't appear to have used it, is it relevant pertaining to the accident.

As I mentioned on the other thread, this is not about the seat use per se but the organization and culture surrounding the accident. Following an accident, the regulatory and supporting documentary evidence are key pieces of the puzzle in establishing how the aircraft was flown and operated. What the CAA are saying here is that enthusiasm and good intentions are no substitute for regulation and control. But as others have noted, what the CAA have actually revealed is that for these omissions and oversights to have been quite as systematic across vintage FJ operations as they appear to be, nobody at the CAA was paying attention until 2 tragic accidents occurred in a short space of time.

[ivor toolbox]

Indeed, what's more it (the report) taken to extreme may mean an end to Vintage swept wing jets flying if operators or maintenance organisations can no longer source seat spares, oh initially it might be UK registered only, but once the EASA lot take notice who knows.

Ttfn

[woptb]

The CAA have questions to answer regarding (what appears to be) very poor oversight of the maintenance organisation. My guess, the AAIB will have some findings against the CAA.

[NutLoose]

Exactly, and when you tell people that you can ignore sections of maintenance manuals it all gets woolly, add to that ambiguity in the system over lifed item requirements and it gets even murkier

[Radix]

.............

[G-CPTN]

So, were the explosive part dates 'best before' or 'do not use after'?

Was there a chance (or a certainty) that the explosive parts would not work?

The fact that recovery was delayed until 'safety checks' were carried out, suggests that these items might have been 'unreliable'.

[tmmorris]

Well one problem was the 52 week lead time on replacement items. So the choice was: disable the seat, or let it go for a bit longer, whilst the replacements are delivered.

Or ground the aircraft...

[andrewn]

Interesting though these findings are, I don't see any smoking gun and neither do I see (significant) evidence of a culture of complacency or mis-management on behalf of either the a/c operator, maintenance provider or the regulator.

Some ambiguity and confusion maybe, leading to different interpretations of the rules. Thus far very little similarity with the Thunder City operation, for example.

What I'm waiting for are the findings on the suitability of the display venue itself and some analysis of the regulations that determine who gets a PDA and what is required to maintain currency.

[Pontius Navigator]

,
The fact that recovery was delayed until 'safety checks' were carried out, suggests that these items might have been 'unreliable'.
The penny has just dropped. The delay for safety checks could not have any connection with the date of the cartridges.

That the cartridges might be out of date would not be known.

The safety checks apply any time there are explosives in that situation, ammunition, practice bombs, bang seats or whatever.

[Courtney Mil]

...and especially the case when the explosive devices have been involved in a crash and in the vicinity of fire, PN.

I think some of you are reading rather too much into what is a very clear statement by the AAIB. Again, remember what their role is and, more importantly, what it is not.

[woptb]

The maintenance organisation 'appeared' to not fully understand the 'hard life' requirement of the seat pyrotechnic cartridges. It seems (according to the AAIB report) they (the approved maintenance organisation) sought clarification as to whether they could remain fitted/in service from the regulator.A8-20 is detailed regarding maintenance of AAES.

The maintenance for Ex Mil,PFA aircraft which exceed 2730Kg MTWA, must be conducted by organisations approved under BCAR's Ch. A8-20.
The maintenance, modification and operating records + the maintenance schedule are made available to the regulator ; If approved, the CAA would have issued the initial permit.

[NutLoose]

Don't forget even if the Cartridges were in date and Serviceable it wouldn't have changed the circumstances one iota, you would still be left with a seat that was live lying next to the aircraft.

Also remember civilian aircraft also carry explosives from very cartridges to ballistic chutes.

There is a guide but it does not touch on much seat wise

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5911/20569401.pdf

I have seen one that covers all egress entry and fire points for all military stuff past and present, but even that government item is wooful and covers really relevant stuff like Harriers.... Not.


A80-20 etc are undergoing upheavals at the moment as it goes over to a more EASA style format.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=220

[woptb]

As with any accident,many stones are turned over and other problems are revealed,besides those contributing factors that (perhaps)led directly to the outcome. I would suggest that if there was a lack of effective oversight, then it should be of major concern to the regulated and regulator.

[Pontius Navigator]

Nutty, exactly, in-date or out of date would affect the crash rescue in exactly the same way. The only thing known positively by the rescue services was the unknown condition of the explosive devices, ie a known unknown.

[A and C]

The decision to extend the life of the ejection seat pyrotechnics is an interesting one.

The original manufactures will have considered a number of factors when setting the limitation, these are likely to be based on the harshest military operation environment with a good measure of safety and a bit of allowance for the deep pockets of the military budget. Once you start operating the aircraft occasionally without the temp cycles of high level flight and store the aircraft in a comfortable environment the safe life of such devices is likely to extend, it is for those who extend the life of these devices to base this decision on reliable data.

It is vital that the black and white attitude to shelf life is not taken and the date on the packet is viewed in the light of current operational conditions as this can move the date in ether direction to ensure reliable performance.

[Stitchbitch]

Most shelf life has a certain amount of wiggle room built in, but I wouldn't like to put my trust in something designed to save my life that has l/x components fitted. That's a huge list of kit from flying clothing to fuel tanks and not just seat carts.

[abgd]

If you offered me a ride in a Hunter with no ejection seat whatsoever, I'd take it. I wouldn't be putting anybody else at risk. I don't see a big issue here in practical terms, and wouldn't extrapolate to a judgement of the rest of the maintenance from this single issue.

[A and C]

I don't think we are in disagreement, the kit should be in a position to do what is says on the tin.

But if you have a big change of operating conditions it is appropriate to review the time you keep an item in service. As I said above this review could reduce or extend service life as appropriate to the conditions.

[Courtney Mil]

Whilst it is true that the operating conditions for the components have changed, which MAY affect installed life, you will also note that the shelf life remains a limiting factor and I doubt storage conditions are significantly different. Moreover, as there are neither data nor a proper evaluation of installed life under the new operating condition it is not possible to calculate a new installed life.

I am commenting here purely on the practicalities of component life, NOT any process that is, or has been, in place.

[MATELO]

Shoreham Airshow Cancelled for 2016.

Shoreham Airshow Cancelled After 2015 Disaster (http://news.sky.com/story/1626867/shoreham-airshow-cancelled-after-2015-disaster)

[Courtney Mil]

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch will shortly be advertising for an Inspector of Air Accidents (Operations). Given the level of expertise here, I thought you might like to know.

[Lonewolf_50]

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch will shortly be advertising for an Inspector of Air Accidents (Operations). Given the level of expertise here, I thought you might like to know. The sarcasm dripping from that post nearly melted my monitor. :D

[ORAC]

Well I was the SFSO South Atlantic and Ops 1 at Stanley/MPA when the C130 collided with the Sea King, and had a very interesting and eventful couple of months.

But that was over 30 years ago........

[Pontius Navigator]

I had occasion to contact the CAA about 20 years ago. My POC was an ex-Wellington Nav so 30 years is nothing.

[Super VC-10]

Breaking on BBC South East News -

The police investigation is being extended to include an incident at an airshow in Southport, Lancashire in 2014.

No further details atm, but one wonders whether the same pilot, aircraft or combination of both was involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35473857

[Cows getting bigger]

Southport 2014. This one? (go to 2:10 onwards)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngQ8TmqU4

[Above The Clouds]

CGB

I think you mean this one.

https://youtu.be/RwhLSHpeiE8

[Super VC-10]

Watched that (GCB's video) twice and didn't see anything that made me wince or anything like that. BBC does not state which a/c involved, but TV promised more on tonight's bulletin, which I won't see due to a clash with something else. I will see the ITV local bulletin at 6pm though, so will report any developments from there.

Now to watch ATC's video.

[Super VC-10]

ATC's video does show the a/c getting a bit low, but I'd like to see a better shot of closeness to ground if possible. Was the same pilot involved here?

[maliyahsdad2]

Photo of the Jet provost at Southport 2014 as published in the Liverpool Echo. Don't know if this is the incident. http://i1.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/article7805731.ece/alternates/s1227b/JS46835858.jpg

- And another shot here!
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Sep-2014/208070-imagejpg1_zpsf9960610.jpg

[Super VC-10]

For those who are not aware, Wikipedia has an article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Shoreham_Airshow_crash

[Simplythebeast]

Im sure there were many such manouvres at airshows all over the place. Sadly the days of a proper airshow in the UK look like they are over, reduced to flypasts.

[Above The Clouds]

This is other video on youtube, start watching around 9:50 and you will see the roll recovery from a different angle but this time relative to a public speaker on a pole at the airshow.

https://youtu.be/7yQmq8i0HG4

Sadly there are discussions on other forums and they seem to be implying it was the same pilot AH, although I will wait to hear that announced officially.

[NavyNav2]

ITV news site confirming same pilot involved in both incidents.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-02/itv-news-exclusive-shoreham-air-crash-pilot-involved-in-second-incident/

[H Peacock]

The JP at Southport clearly infringed the display minima, both laterally (too close to the crowd) and vertically ( too close to the ground). But it would appear to have been the result of a poorly executed roll during which the nose was not held high enough. Once the nose got low it was always going to be quite a hairy escape manoeuvre!

[Fortissimo]

Classic. I once had a student black himself out doing a slow roll - he let the nose drop in the inverted and pulled just shy of 6g on the recovery. It would have been more than 6g but for some 'assistance' in the opposite direction.

Re Southport, that appears to be luck rather than judgement. You would need the right photogrammetry software to go for anything more specific than "appears to be", and I don't suppose many Ppruners have that.

[Courtney Mil]

you will see the roll recovery from a different angle but this time relative to a public speaker on a pole at the airshow.

Are you trying to use the height of the speaker as a means of judging the height of the aircraft? Without knowing the height of the camera, the height of the speaker and the relative distances between aircraft, speaker and camera, that it meaningless and, frankly, somewhat typical of trying to use YuoTube video to make out that something is way more dramatic than it really is.

Lucky that so many have turned out here again to solve the case without the need for any real evidence.

[philbky]

Are you trying to use the height of the speaker as a means of judging the height of the aircraft? Without knowing the height of the camera, the height of the speaker and the relative distances between aircraft, speaker and camera, that it meaningless and, frankly, somewhat typical of trying to use YuoTube video to make out that something is way more dramatic than it really is.

Lucky that so many have turned out here again to solve the case without the need for any real evidence.

I was at Southport and witnessed the event. Unlike the following day when there was little cloud, the display was restricted by low cloud. I was some 60 or so yards to the left of the trajectory of the aircraft as it pulled out of the manoeuvre from the direction of the sea. I was with a friend, between us we have over 120 years of regularly attending airshows around the world.

Our immediate response to what we saw was that he was extremely lucky not to put the aircraft into the sea. Having avoided that the aircraft bust the crowd line before turning parallel to the sea and eventually climbing during which he was red carded. Our estimate of his maximum height over the crowd was around 150 to 175 feet though obviously we had no accurate measure other than trying to judge based on the heads of the crowd.

There were gasps from the crowd, our view was that he had overcooked it. On other forums people in the path of the aircraft, some seasoned airshow visitors, posted later that day and during the next day, that they were concerned and even momentarily scared.

The videos are not the best views. I have seen others not posted on the web and as they all focus on the aircraft there is little reference to the crowd or ground. I, my friend and many others watching with Mk1 eyeball from a reasonably short distance did have a reference. Had the aircraft no recovered and gained height before busting the crowd line, the result would have been carnage.

The Liverpool Echo photo is earlier in the display.

[RetiredBA/BY]

That roll was very poorly executed, particularly at low level, the nose was allowed to drop significantly when approaching and when inverted. Regardless of camera angles and comparative heights etc., it was very badly flown.

The JP needed quite a push when inverted due to its wing section, which was far from symmetrical.

Dramatic? Damned close to disastrous.

( former A2 standards QFI on type)

[strake]

Courtney, normally you are right but in this instance, his display was stopped by the organisers. Full story ITV News exclusive: Shoreham air crash pilot 'involved in second incident' - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-02/itv-news-exclusive-shoreham-air-crash-pilot-involved-in-second-incident/)

[Onceapilot]

Despite the grey background, I feel that ATCs vid on #964 shows the elements of the manoeuvre quite well. Some disturbing "almost" vids to be seen, the Abingdon Gnat last year included. Not good!:=

OAP

[Courtney Mil]

To all/most of the above. I am not arguing with anything about what happened. My point, again, is using a video taken from an unknown location and angle to deduce the height of an aircraft.

Those of you that were there and saw it happen will know much more about an incident than anyone watching a YouTube video.

[H Peacock]

CM. Why so defensive? You appear unprepared to accept that the Hunter accident at Shoreham was almost certainly as a result of pilot error, and now that the JP at Southport was, to some degree, 'mishandled'.

Now I'm not categorically stating that Shoreham was caused by pilot error, but surely you can't object to any suggestion from others that it probably was! Are you saying that, while we don't have all the facts, the "probably" must remain and hence we should say nothing?

[Bigbux]

Whilst it is true that the operating conditions for the components have changed, which MAY affect installed life, you will also note that the shelf life remains a limiting factor and I doubt storage conditions are significantly different. Moreover, as there are neither data nor a proper evaluation of installed life under the new operating condition it is not possible to calculate a new installed life.

I am commenting here purely on the practicalities of component life, NOT any process that is, or has been, in place.

Explosive components are lifed by manufactured lots. Period. If batch testing is carried out to extend lives, then the operational environment may sometimes be taken into account - but usually to the detriment of the life. Batch testing is carried out by approved establishments, in proper process buildings, using scientific methods, and not by some clever cloggs who thinks "it'll do a trip". Anyone who installs explosive cartridges that are life ex needs their tool kit confiscated. Authorisers who ignore life dates should seek alternative employment. Bending the rules gets people killed.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, I'll take one at a time.

H Peacock,

I have nothing to be defensive about. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Shoreham accident MAY have been caused by pilot error and I shall certainly not argue with the official findings should that be the case. What I am absolutely NOT prepared to accept is people such as you arriving at their own conclusions WITHOUT knowing anything more than what they think they have seen on YouTube and what they have read in some rather poor newspaper articles, written by people who clearly do not understand aviation.

Your conclusion, based on a lot of assumption, may turn out to be right, but without seeing all the EVIDENCE and knowing all the facts, you are wrong to state your opinion as fact in public. If you wish to state your opinion, then fine, you have every right to do so. As I have every right to point out to you that none of us here are in possession of sufficient evidence to state it with much certainty.

Bigbux,

You appear to have picked up on a discussion that took place here some time ago. I seem to recall I may have answered a similar question at the time. If you can't find a response feel free to come back to me and I'll take a look back through the thread for you.

[Arfur Dent]

The pilot of the JP started the roll with the nose too low which is typical of someone either not very good or not very current. I suspect it was a bit of both. Was there extra training after the 'red card'? I'll wager the 'good old boys network' came into play and off he goes in the Hunter.
My qualifications so to speak? 3 FJ tours inc Harrier and courses on both JP, Hunter, Gnat etc etc.
He should've hung up his goggles and gone back to his A320 day job.
Finally, as I've said before, current RAF display pilots fly vastly more hours on type than these dangerous 'part timers'. Let's have a core of them to fly displays in vintage aircraft. A bit like an upgraded BBMF but with fast jets too. Properly organised and financed AND SUPERVISED AND TRAINED AND CHECKED.

[Onceapilot]

Courtney..."Those of you that were there and saw it happen will know much more about an incident than anyone watching a YouTube video."

Sorry old chap, give or take the vagaries of recordings, I believe the opposite is true of witness evidence vs recordings.:)

OAP

[Pontius Navigator]

AD, you are well qualified to say what I only thought. May I add to your trained and checked "on one type" as read across may well be inappropriate.

[philbky]

Courtney..."Those of you that were there and saw it happen will know much more about an incident than anyone watching a YouTube video."

Sorry old chap, give or take the vagaries of recordings, I believe the opposite is true of witness evidence vs recordings.:)

OAP

In many cases I would agree with you re witnesses v videos but in this instance I have yet to see a video which shows a view far back enough from the aircraft to take in enough of the surroundings to tell the story. Those of us who witnessed the incident with a history of watching aircraft and particularly displays, know just how close this was to an accident. It would be interesting if a video taken from the pier surfaces as this would provide an unobstructed view with good reference points.

[Courtney Mil]

OAP,

I understand your concerns about witness statements, especially from traumatic events. Video is a very useful medium in cases like these, but my point is that, in many cases, you really need to understand where the camera was and the relative position of objects you're using as a reference.

In the example here of the speaker on a pole, a speaker mounted on a ten foot pole, ten feet from a six foot cameraman would appear to line up with an object at over 100 feet 100 yards away, roughly. Numbers done in my head using old money. As you don't know the height of the camera, the height of the speaker or the horizontal distance between any of the three objects, you can't do any sums to calculate the height of the aircraft. Get it?

[Lonewolf_50]

In the example here of the speaker on a pole, a speaker mounted on a ten foot pole, ten feet from a six foot cameraman would appear to line up with an object at over 100 feet 100 yards away, roughly. Numbers done in my head using old money. As you don't know the height of the camera, the height of the speaker or the horizontal distance between any of the three objects, you can't do any sums to calculate the height of the aircraft. Get it? That you had to explain that speaks volumes about what basis for understanding you are dealing with.

[LlamaFarmer]

The pilot of the JP started the roll with the nose too low which is typical of someone either not very good or not very current. I suspect it was a bit of both. Was there extra training after the 'red card'? I'll wager the 'good old boys network' came into play and off he goes in the Hunter.
My qualifications so to speak? 3 FJ tours inc Harrier and courses on both JP, Hunter, Gnat etc etc.
He should've hung up his goggles and gone back to his A320 day job.
Finally, as I've said before, current RAF display pilots fly vastly more hours on type than these dangerous 'part timers'. Let's have a core of them to fly displays in vintage aircraft. A bit like an upgraded BBMF but with fast jets too. Properly organised and financed AND SUPERVISED AND TRAINED AND CHECKED.

A great idea... I am completely for a "RAF Historic Flight" with full time FJ pilots with regular display training/experience, perhaps who do a two year tour alongside their primary posting, before going back to their full time posting.

If they made it appealing enough they could probably offset some of the cost involved from demand to display at many airshows around UK and Europe.


Unfortunately as soon as money and bureaucracy and politics get involved then that shuts the idea right down.



I reckon it'd be much much safer than out-of-practice former FJ pilots who think their skills are still as sharp as they were back in the day, who may or may not have had any display practice in the recent weeks/months in that aircraft.

[overstress]

The pilot of the JP started the roll with the nose too low which is typical of someone either not very good or not very current. I suspect it was a bit of both. Was there extra training after the 'red card'? I'll wager the 'good old boys network' came into play and off he goes in the Hunter.
My qualifications so to speak? 3 FJ tours inc Harrier and courses on both JP, Hunter, Gnat etc etc.
He should've hung up his goggles and gone back to his A320 day job.

Everyone can have his own opinion, but not their own facts. Like you, AH was also a Harrier pilot and prior to that, an A2 QFI on the JP. Without prejudice with regards to subsequent events, I don't think your first comment holds water. I can't comment on his currency. Not sure what the 'good old boys network' is.

[Pontius]

AH was also a Harrier pilot and prior to that, an A2 QFI on the JP

.....and regularly flew HIS JP(s) and, also, his RV8 (in formation aeros).

So, really quite far from being "not very good or not very current" and completely nullifying your arrogant assertions.

Now, having established that Andy is actually quite good (for a Crab) and keeps himself current, he really did pork that roll in the JP :ooh:

It would be interesting to know if he was given the red card by the display organisers or whether he decided to knock it off himself.

[LlamaFarmer]

.....and regularly flew HIS JP(s) and, also, his RV8 (in formation aeros).

So, really quite far from being "not very good or not very current" and completely nullifying your arrogant assertions.

Now, having established that Andy is actually quite good (for a Crab) and keeps himself current, he really did pork that roll in the JP :ooh:

Quite... one would perhaps expect better from him. But even the best f*** up sometimes, especially if they're not following the rules or heeding their personal limits (not suggesting he wasn't, but it does lead one to entertain the question)

It would be interesting to know if he was given the red card by the display organisers or whether he decided to knock it off himself.

David Walton, who was responsible for the safety of the show that day, said a stop call was immediately issued and the display was terminated.

Mr Walton told ITV News: "During the display... ...the aircraft was observed to be inside the lateral separation minima for the event and also below the minimum height stipulated in the Article 162 Permission issued by the CAA.

"A "stop" call was immediately issued by the Flying Display Director on the display radio frequency and the flying display was terminated.

"The Flying Control Committee had also witnessed the event and agreed with the course of action.


It sounds like he was red carded... although I imagine that call was probably transmitted as he was already pulling up into a climb-out so may have decided to knock it on the head himself, or at least suspend the sequence.
Can't imagine they would risk distracting a pilot at a critical point (in what may have appeared to be an already dangerously botched manoeuvre) by making a radio call before the roll was complete.