Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow [Archive] - Page 6

NutLoose

17th Feb 2016, 10:26

Quote:
Spectators get killed at many events all over the world.

Yep, and that makes it OK? A minor point, many of those killed weren't spectators, they were going about their own business on a public highway.

Anyway, it's almost irrelevant whether AH cocked-up or the aircraft suffered a technical failure. The bit that really needs ironing-out is why uninvolved third parties got caught-up in the accident. This gets down to risk assessments/management etc and I think is why the CAA have reacted so positively. My instinct tells me that they feel there may have been a failure in air display oversight, right up to the Regulator. Correct, that is the one thing that is different, attending an air show and purchasing a ticket you are in effect signing up to an agreement that you attend at your own risk and are aware of the dangers and possibility you could be harmed. The difference here was those involved did not sign up to those terms and conditions and were not attending the show, but were going about their daily business.

As an example from Cosfords Airshow site.

By purchasing tickets online, over the phone or from an outlet you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions. http://www.cosfordairshow.co.uk/tickets.php

CONDITIONS OF ENTRY

Visitors entering the airfield do so entirely at their own risk.

No liability will be accepted by the Organisers, their consultants, servants, agents, independent contractors or sponsors for any injury (including fatal injury), illness, damage or loss whatsoever directly or indirectly occasioned to person or property, whether due to negligence or otherwise howsoever caused subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.Terms and Conditions (http://www.cosfordairshow.co.uk/terms.php)

LlamaFarmer

17th Feb 2016, 12:12

Correct, that is the one thing that is different, attending an air show and purchasing a ticket you are in effect signing up to an agreement that you attend at your own risk and are aware of the dangers and possibility you could be harmed.

Matter of interest, where does it stand for something like Bournemouth, where there are no tickets?

If you're not purchasing something or registering for it, then you cannot enter such a contract.

Does your mere presence at the beach count, or is no contract/agreement in place, implied or otherwise.

Pontius Navigator

17th Feb 2016, 12:15

Jetblu, I admit I am hard of hearing and now it seems I am hard of understanding too.

If I do understand what you wrote at 1252 , then it is drivel. If I don't, what are you trying to say?

OmegaV6

17th Feb 2016, 12:26

PN ... you are probably wasting your time ... his hangover will still be his main concern.

It's a shame that keyboards don't have a built in intoximeter that you have to pass before pressing "enter", would save a lot of embarrassing posts.

If my assumption that this was an alcohol fuelled rant is incorrect, then the guy needs some serious help IMHO

:(

Just This Once...

17th Feb 2016, 15:10

Does Cosford really include a clause that absolves themselves from negligence?

Such a clause would be unlawful.

:confused:

PhilipG

17th Feb 2016, 15:37

Terms and Conditions for this year's Silverstone Grand Prix state: -

16. MOTOR RACING IS DANGEROUS AND NOISY AND TICKET HOLDERS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY MAY BE EXPOSED TO POSSIBLE RISK OF PHYSICAL HARM DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE EVENT. SCL, THE SANCTIONING BODIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FOWC, FORMULA ONE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, FIA, FORMULA ONE MARKETING LIMITED, FORMULA ONE HOSPITALITY AND EVENT SERVICES LIMITED, FORMULA ONE ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, FORMULA ONE LICENSING BV, THE ORGANISERS OF THE EVENT (INCLUDING OFFICIALS, MARSHALS, RESCUE MEDICAL STAFF), COMPETITORS AND DRIVERS, ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE HOWSOEVER CAUSED TO TICKET HOLDERS, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. - See more at: 2016 British Grand Prix Terms and Conditions | Silverstone (http://www.silverstone.co.uk/terms-conditions/2016-british-grand-prix-terms-and-conditions/#sthash.hJLzpEMR.dpuf)

Just This Once...

17th Feb 2016, 16:55

My surprise was specific to the unlawful clause quoted, as you cannot evade or exclude negligence under any contract - be it scribbled on the back of a ticket or embellished on parchment in blood, countersigned by the Secretary Of State (preferably using his blood).

Simplythebeast

17th Feb 2016, 18:34

Thats why it say "to the maximum extent permitted by law". Obviously unlawful acts and negligence could not be covered by the conditions,

NutLoose

17th Feb 2016, 18:44

Llamafarmer,

I checked the Bournemouth show site and there isn't any conditions, I assume it's because the display is over the water. I presume the council cover it through their insurers.

NutLoose

17th Feb 2016, 19:01

Terms and conditions for Glastonbury.... Seems to be a common theme

4. Admission is at ticket holder’s own risk. Glastonbury Festival 2016 Ltd and the Premises Licence Holder will not be held liable for any loss, injuries or damages sustained at the event including damage, theft or losses to property and motor vehicles, if the cause is due to the negligence of the ticket holder or the actions of other patrons or third parties or force majeure.

Wageslave

17th Feb 2016, 20:56

The Elephant in the room is being ignored as usual.

I'm a pilot. Every so often, I drop a bollock..

What I don't like, is folk who try to call a spade a shovel.

And just for those who are interested, this is all about a pilot who ran out of sky. Can we not as a community of pilots recognise that thing that is clear for even a simpleton to see?

He cocked it up!

So? Who hasn't?

I'm fed up of this PC, 'Skirting-around -the-edges' bollocks'.

He banjoed WV392, and thank God- he's still alive.

For pities sake, call it for what it is.

It seems to me that there is more sense in this post than in whole pages that preceed or follow it.

I do disagree with Ac's statement that "this is all about a pilot" merely as being a tiny bit too definite - infitessimally too definite; one seemingly has to add disclaimers to statements of the obvious posted here that just might under the most extremes of chance have another cause against all normal judgement and experience.And this is one of them.

There is a persistent hypocrisy on this forum that while it is OK to admit that while members of our elite brotherhood are theoretically capable of screwing up it is beyond the pale to suggest that one actually has done so even when all the signs are that is exactly what happened. That is neither honest nor very helpful in recognising what may have occurred.

Our society is appallingly bad at assessing risk and proportion and pilots are no exception though one might hope they should be. While I don't decry the proper investigative process we delude ourselves by slagging off the free thinkers who see a duck, hear a duck, recognise a duck's flight and reach an unpopular logical conclusion.
As Ac said this happens repeatedly, vide the suicide in the Alps last year when even after all the circumstantial evidence had been stacked up the febrile debate over the most unlikely mechanical causes continued to the exclusion of the obvious answer as it was felt one of out brethren could not possibly have done such an unthinkable thing. This simply isn't a rational, mature or very professional approach to reality.

We'll never know what made that Chinook hit the Mull of Kintyre but we can be as certain as we can be that it was just another cumulo granitus and not with a mechanical cause just as we know that the Clutha Bar accident was caused by running out of fuel in flight and failing to establish autorotation. Why? How? We'll never know, but it was, ultimately, down to one of our colleagues getting it wrong. Sure, there may have been some million to one chance of something quite unexpected, unseen and unrecorded happened and though statistically the extremists and zealots can rely on this to claim "no proof" ir simply isn't a very rational practical position to take. There may well have been - doubtless were - extraneous events that led them into it, but they apparently didn't make them do it, thus get it wrong they did.

Let's show a bit of humility and be a bit more open minded about our so well proven frailty shall we? We'd probably learn more faster if we did...

I'll get my coat. :|

Courtney Mil

17th Feb 2016, 21:39

There is a persistent hypocrisy on this forum that while it is OK to admit that while members of our elite brotherhood are theoretically capable of screwing up it is beyond the pale to suggest that one actually has done so even when all the signs are that is exactly what happened. That is neither honest nor very helpful in recognising what may have occurred.

Therein lies the problem with this and all the similar threads: people that read posts and see what they want to see without understanding what has been said.

I'm not about to re-read this whole thread nor any of the related ones right now, but I will tell you this. I do not recall anyone ever saying that this accident was not caused by the pilot, be it pilot error or other human factors. I suspect I have been one of the most vocal (in the written sense) on this subject so I shall explain.

What a number of pilots here have been saying is that it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that it was the pilot's fault (frequently based on just some photographs and a couple of videos) without knowing that there are no other possible causes. Especially as those opinions are being published on a public forum.

It is perfectly proper for the AAIB or any other qualified body to state that the pilot has "screwed up", to use your terms, when "all the signs are that is exactly what happened." What I and some others are saying is that we have not yet seen "all the signs" and we do not, therefore know what did or did not happen to cause the crash.

What is to be gained by jumping to uninformed conclusions, based on an incomplete picture, instead of waiting for the complete picture? It is neither professional nor just and it is libellous.

So, to be clear, contrary to your position, I haven't seen anyone here say it was not pilot error. I have seen plenty express their conclusion that it was. I and some others have said that until the results of the full examination are known, no one can say what the cause was. To use your words, no one has said that "it is beyond the pale to suggest that one actually has done so even when all the signs are that is exactly what happened". We have said that it is inappropriate to suggest that as a known cause, when the cause has not yet been determined.

But armchair experts will always want their say - for whatever reason.

O-P

17th Feb 2016, 22:31

Thanks, CM, you just saved me about 7 paragraphs!

Wageslave,

If I may give you an example of why 'blame without the full picture' is a bad idea;

About 2 years ago I slammed my knackered old GM truck, (well when I say slammed I was doing about 10mph) into my neighbours tree, fence and then their daughters Jeep. Everyone assumed, despite my protestations, that I was going too fast (I wasn't). It turned out that the ignition switch had failed and put the steering lock on, cut the servo to the brakes and left the engine in drive!! (Google GM ignition switch scandal)

I was lucky, several people died due to the switch failure. My point is that many people were blamed for accidents caused by "Driver error" when the car had actually failed them.

Until all the facts are known, I will withhold my judgement on the Shoreham accident. A wise man would do the same.

PS. I have screwed up in jets many times!!!

Two's in

18th Feb 2016, 01:07

In the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle;

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

In this depressing world of instant, but meaningless, news and immediate gratification, it is inconvenient to think that a professional inquiry may take some time to "eliminate the impossible". As we are on the Military forum, I can only suggest that those demanding cable TV's version of instant justice should perhaps serve on a Board of Inquiry or two (or SI now I believe) before professing to know what needs to be investigated or not.

tucumseh

18th Feb 2016, 07:14

My view is that one has to recognise the very different roles of the AAIB when investigating Military and Civilian accidents. In the latter (e.g. Clutha Vaults was mentioned), they look at events, factors and cause, including regulatory and organisational failures. In the former (e.g. MoK), they are prohibited from exploring beyond the immediate physical evidence at the scene (and sometimes not even that), everything else being the responsibility of the engineering member of the Board. He is normally very junior, almost by definition has little experience, doesn’t know what to ask and is often directed as to findings. Worse, the people who task and direct him often actively conceal evidence. That is what feeds a rumour site such as this and why we should be tolerant of comment by competent people. After all, it has cracked a few accidents discussed here over the years.

essdee

18th Feb 2016, 09:44

tucumseh

I'd like to see the evidence you have that leads you to make such disparaging remarks about the engineering member of a BoI or SI. In my experience, admittedly at least 20 years out of date, the convening authority is very careful about the experience and qualifications of those it appoints to a board. Furthermore, while the president is clearly in charge of proceedings, every board member is of equal status as far as the findings are concerned. This is evidenced by the fact that all of them sign as agreeing the findings and recommendations. To imply that anyone on a board is directed as to the findings is calumny.

tucumseh

18th Feb 2016, 11:00

To imply that anyone on a board is directed as to the findings is calumny. And yet given under oath in evidence to, for example, the MoK Fatal Accident Inquiry, plus judicial inquiries. And addressed in a formal report that MoD and Government withheld for almost 25 years. (Tench January 1987). This has been stated many times on this forum over the years, notably by first hand witnesses to the briefing by a BoI President. It has also been stated here by a respected 1 Star former BoI engineering member. There is plenty of evidence, which is presumably why the Tench Report was hidden away.

Disparaging? What training is an engineering board member given that makes him able to carry out his role? Especially when senior staffs actively conceal evidence from him. That is not disparaging toward the engineer, but toward the system that permits it. Tench, again.

NutLoose

18th Feb 2016, 12:02

An interesting read

Tintagel Plane Crash Story (http://www.tintagelweb.co.uk/tintagel%20plane%20crash.htm)

tucumseh, you will find it so BTW

tucumseh

18th Feb 2016, 12:42

Many thanks Nutloose

The first bit I picked up on was MoD rejecting safety critical modifications. The Tench report cites such an example on Lynx alternators, unactioned 5 years after a transmission deck fire.

This has been repeated many times here:

My story is one of mismanagement and obfuscation at the highest levels, often by past colleagues; of incredible support from the least expected quarters; of downright untruths by the ‘great and the good’; of lack of proper forward planning; of disregard for the well-being of the pilots who flew the aircraft.

including minuted comments on how proud the MoD and Civil Service staff were with the way they had put their political master off the trail.

We saw that last bit on the MoK thread with the disgusting posts by "Atlantic Cowboy". We saw the first at the FAI in 1996, when MoD's QC reckoned safety regulations were irrelevant. A view repeated at the XV230 Inquest 11 years later.

Chugalug2

18th Feb 2016, 15:49

ed:-

To imply that anyone on a board is directed as to the findings is calumny.

That statement is risible given the evidence on fatal accident threads in this very forum. In one case the BoI President himself told Squadron Pilots of the real conclusions of his Board, which was greatly at variance to its published report. The reason was that they had been directed not to alienate the aircraft manufacturer stateside...

Any Military Inquiry that investigates an accident that might uncover evidence liable to bring the Military Air Regulator (the MAA/MOD) into disrepute will be so directed, although most of the effort will be in keeping such witnesses or evidence from the Inquiry in the first place. The Odiham Test Pilot being such a witness. He was never interviewed by the Mull BoI, despite urgently requesting to be so.

LOMCEVAK

20th Feb 2016, 09:03

Wageslave,

I think that your analogy to the German Wings accident is not really valid in this debate because the weight of evidence, albeit circumstantial, is that in this accident the pilot deliberately flew the aircraft into the ground. This means that the accident was not due to 'pilot error' but was due to an intentional act that was possibly pre-meditated.

I find your comment "Let's show a bit of humility and be a bit more open minded" rather ironic when set in the context of your post. It is those who say 'It is pilot error - full stop' that are the ones who are arrogant and narrow minded not, as you imply, those who await further evidence before coming to a conclusion.

I fully endorse CM's comments in reply to your post. Pilot error occurs, but whoever the pilot was who made the error in question had no intention of causing the outcome resulting from the error. Any error, inevitably, has multiple causes of varying magnitude of influence. We may be able to identify those causes and, through education, training, review of procedures and regulation, reduce the probability of it happening again. Or we may never discover why the error was made, but almost certainly there will have been one or more reasons. In such circumstances an agnostic philosophy is, in my opinion, the best response.

Alvin Steele

21st Feb 2016, 09:30

I have just read the latest Pilot mag where there are details of what appears to be a radical overhaul of the current DA/DAE and FDD requirements.
My question is, would the CAA be privy to the latest AAIB findings before the publication of the final report?
The CAA have taken swift decisive action by the looks of things and one wonders if they feel as if this overhaul was long overdue.
The article makes very interesting and sobering reading.

Mach Jump

21st Feb 2016, 10:03

From a previous thread:

After 9/11, someone said, 'Never let a crisis go to waste', and a whole raft of hitherto impossible to justify, draconian measures, including the inexplicable occupation of a foreign country, became a reality.

Many of these restrictions if they had been in force at the time.would have done little, if anything to prevent the events of that day,

There is something of that same concept here, in that the Hunter accident at Shoreham has enabled people to dust off and propose many already held ideas for even more heavy handed regulation/cost, that would, most likely, have made not a scrap of difference to this accident. (The specific cause of which is still unknown.)

Until Shoreham 2015 not a single person, other than those associated with the event, as either participants, or spectators, has ever been killed, in the entire history of airshows in the UK.

I believe we may well be attempting to eliminate the risk of a 'once in 100 years' event, by decimating the UK Airshow industry.

MJ

MJ:ok:

Courtney Mil

21st Feb 2016, 14:09

Alain,

In effect, no. The CAA will be sent copies of the report so they don't need to go online to download it. They may be given a bit of courtesy, but we're not talking weeks or months of delay for redaction or rebuttal. Only ex-Prime Ministers get that privilege.

Yellow Sun

21st Feb 2016, 14:25

Alvin Steele wrote:

I have just read the latest Pilot mag where there are details of what appears to be a radical overhaul of the current DA/DAE and FDD requirements.
My question is, would the CAA be privy to the latest AAIB findings before the publication of the final report?
The CAA have taken swift decisive action by the looks of things and one wonders if they feel as if this overhaul was long overdue.
The article makes very interesting and sobering reading.

It is a very interesting article. (http://www.pilotweb.aero/news/caa_tightens_up_air_display_regulations_and_proposes_hike_in _fees_1_4419439) I am not sufficiently familiar with the current regulations to appreciate just how much of a change that this represents. However it would appear that there is a significant change of philosophy that may be an attempt to influence the culture attending display flying.

It would appear that the move is from having the "right to display" subject to meeting the criteria to one of having to "demonstrate suitability" and meet more stringent criteria. Those familiar with the UK Firearms Act will quickly see the analogy with Section 2 (shotgun) and Section 1 (rifled barrel firearms) procedures. Indeed, the use of the phrase "right attitudes and behaviours" in relation to display pilots, evaluators and directors is again reminiscent of the language used in relation to assessing suitability to possess firearms in the UK.

Interesting times indeed.

YS

Courtney Mil

21st Feb 2016, 15:10

Assessment of attitude is not new to the display approval process. The emphasis may be changing, but it was already in the checklist.

Yellow Sun

21st Feb 2016, 15:46

Assessment of attitude is not new to the display approval process. The emphasis may be changing, but it was already in the checklist.

As was the requirement for referees for Firearm Certificate applications to address specific questions in their submission. It was relatively easy to "tick the boxes" without actually revealing much about the applicant. The selection of referees has now moved from the "pillar of society" figure to having to provide names of those with a greater knowledge of the applicant and their circumstances. Written references are no longer required, but the referee may be contacted by an enquiry officer to discuss the applicant.

So, whilst the process is broadly the same in its purpose, the emphasis and depth of enquiry has definitely altered. I feel that a parallel process in in train with respect to DAs.

I apologise to those not familiar with UK Firearms Licencing procedures, but they do provide a useful analogy for comparing methods of assessment of suitability.

I also found it significant that the article mentions:

DAEs refusing, or even displaying reluctance to attend* their annual seminar will affect the CAA’s assessment of renewing their DAEs.
*my emphasis

This would seem to indicate a hardening of approach by the CAA and a method of ensuring that DAEs fully cooperate with the regulating authority.

YS

Thomas coupling

21st Feb 2016, 17:33

Alvin steele: Yes the CAA will be privvy to the AAIB findings before they go to print in March. In fact I believe the findings went there last week.

The CAA report is long overdue. This is an (airshow) industry that is in need of an overhaul.

DaveUnwin

22nd Feb 2016, 14:41

Anybody else seen Proposed Mandatory Permit Directive 16-01? It's an intriguing document, but the big question (for me at least) is that can any of you think of anything currently flying in the UK on the G-reg that's powered by a RR Nene?

FAStoat

22nd Feb 2016, 14:51

There may be a Canadair T33 T Bird out there with a G Reg,and now RNHF is run by civilians the Seahawk might be off charge and to be a G reg!The Sea Vixen seems to be a bit of both now!!I believe the poor Seahawk is still suffering from its Fuel Recuperator system,that sits above the bifurcated exhaust,so is prone to setting off Red lights.Easiest way to stop it is to simply remove it,as it only does aileron rolls so no Neg G and it has a relight button,but I gather the CAA will not accept the MOD as it was never done in service,and Hawkers no longer exist!!??Maybe Eric Heywood is still alive to make it work,otherwise it may not be seen again!!Therefore a RR Nene could be a possibility on the Display scene again!!?????????????????

Nige321

22nd Feb 2016, 15:06

now RNHF is run by civilians the Seahawk might be off charge and to be a G reg!

Not anytime soon. It was dismantled and taken to Shawbury last week for storage...:sad:

DaveUnwin

22nd Feb 2016, 15:10

Ahhh, the Sea Hawk might explain it. I think all the T-Birds are gone.

Pittsextra

4th Mar 2016, 20:37

Joint Statement by the Honourable Company of Air Pilots and the British Air Display Association - Air Pilots (http://www.airpilots.org/press-pages/press-releases/joint-statement-by-the-honourable-company-of-air-pilots-and-the-british-air-display-association/)

Pontius Navigator

4th Mar 2016, 20:49

joint statement by the honourable company of air pilots and the british air display association - air pilots (http://www.airpilots.org/press-pages/press-releases/joint-statement-by-the-honourable-company-of-air-pilots-and-the-british-air-display-association/)

"pilot organisations reject caa ceo’s claims that the air display community has declined to co-operate with its post-shoreham crash changes to airshows"

And nothing directly relevant to Shoreham.

Pittsextra

4th Mar 2016, 20:53

The whole thing is related to Shoreham and therefore relevant.

Rigga

5th Mar 2016, 08:10

I find it interesting that GAPAN spin doctors seem to have redefined the CAA CEO's "resistance" as "declined to co-operate". That seems to be a large bit of escalation and politicking too.
I would rudely assume that when the CAA and GAPAN met to discuss the issues, the CAA had already made its rule changes and that GAPAN didn't agree with them...

Something akin to "When an immovable object meets a self-righteous society..."

The Old Fat One

5th Mar 2016, 08:39

....the CAA is populated in the main by officials, many of whom having little or no understanding of aviation...

Whether that is true or not, it seems the language of confrontation, as does much else in the letter. As an aside I had a quick look at the CAA executive and there are aviators amongst them, but perhaps in too small a number?

bigglesbrother

5th Mar 2016, 08:43

Please see the great formation aeros picture at post #596 on this thread.

If 4 regular RAF Squadron pilots can consistently loop 4 Hawker Hunters safely in close formation – why can a solo Hunter pilot not complete a safe loop without hitting the ground and causing havoc at an airshow?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/eusa_wall.gif

tucumseh

5th Mar 2016, 09:08

That letter would not be out of place in the Nimrod Review. It accuses the CAA of savings at the expense of safety.

Flap62

5th Mar 2016, 09:14

bigglesbrother,

Have you read any of this thread or indead anything about the accident at all?

He couldn't complete a loop because he was not attempting to fly a loop! It was a completely different manoeuvre.

bigglesbrother

5th Mar 2016, 10:51

Hallo Flaps 62 ....

If a Hawker Hunter starts a pull up from a normal upright flight position - keeps pulling and climbing until it is inverted - (becoming desperately slow at the top as it happens) and then pulls through toward the original upright normal flight attitude as it nears the original start altitude - that is essentially a 'loop'.

A change of direction from entry heading to descent/impact heading does not negate the general aerodynamic description 'loop'.

The Shoreham Hunter went up, was inverted at the top, and then descended with the intent to arrive once more in a normal upright flying attitude at around manoeuvre start height. This it failed to do with tragic consequences.

The axis of the loop was likely skewed by the pilot in an attempt to stay within the airshow airspace, but it was still up we go and down we come - planning to arrive at the start height ready for the next display manoeuvre.

Courtney Mil

5th Mar 2016, 11:38

Bogglesbrother,

Thank you for telling us what everyone here has been discussing for months now.

Flap62

5th Mar 2016, 12:13

bigglesbrother,

It's a Saturday night, this has indeed been done to death but here goes.

If you cannot understand how any rolling manoeuvre has a significant impact on the geometry of a vertical manoeuvre and you insist on calling a barrel roll/quarter clover a "loop" then I have doubts about your credentials to comment. Perhaps you should ask your brother (or even Algy) to explain things to you.

Oh, by the way, you say the Hunter was "desperately slow at the top". Can you please tell me its IAS in the inverted position?

bigglesbrother

5th Mar 2016, 12:23

Courtney,

I have enjoyed reading many of your posts. But your reply #1297 above is disingenuous.

In post #1295 above the writer states in print .... 'He couldn't complete a loop because he was not attempting to fly a loop!'.
My reply was to that simple but totally erroneous statement.

Going up & coming down in what is essentially a big vertical circle has been described as a loop since the days of biplanes looping while tied together with ribbons.

I reiterate: the Hawker Hunter pilot was attempting a low level looping manoeuvre and screwed up in a big way.

PS Your spelling is not good. Who is Bogglesbrother?

Above The Clouds

5th Mar 2016, 12:54

I reiterate: the Hawker Hunter pilot was attempting a low level looping manoeuvre and screwed up in a big way.

How do you know that ? maybe it was a barrel roll that went wrong.

DaveUnwin

5th Mar 2016, 13:14

He certainly seems much better informed than the rest of us ATC! Quite remarkable really. All those months of painstaking investigations then someone simply pops up here and tells us all exactly what happened.
My advice? Don't feed the trolls.........

Courtney Mil

5th Mar 2016, 15:26

I reiterate: the Hawker Hunter pilot was attempting a low level looping manoeuvre and screwed up in a big way.

Well, you clearly know better than the aviation experts. The investigators should have thought of just looking at an internet video instead of conducting a thorough and expensive forensic examination and inquiry.

Oh, and by the way,

Thank you for telling us what everyone here has been discussing for months now.

was not disingenuousness, it was sarcasm (the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to criticize something in a humorous way). I have to admit that I wasn't actually grateful for your clarifying remark. And I am certainly not grateful to anyone that levels unsubstantiated accusations about anyone's actions without knowing all the facts, which you clearly don't.

NutLoose

5th Mar 2016, 16:46

handleturning

5th Mar 2016, 17:02

JOINT STATEMENT BY THE ?HONOURABLE COMPANY OF AIR PILOTS? AND THE ?BRITISH AIR DISPLAY ASSOCIATION? : British Air Display Association (http://www.bada-uk.com/2016/03/joint-statement-by-the-honourable-company-of-air-pilots-and-the-british-air-display-association/)

Enough said.

Generally fair, although I think the accusation that the CAA is manned by civil servants with no aviation background is harsh.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

5th Mar 2016, 18:42

I recall seeing somewhere that AAIB had a report in draft, and that it would be published in March. Anyone here know if that's true?

Courtney Mil

5th Mar 2016, 19:51

Any idea where you recall seeing that?

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

5th Mar 2016, 22:49

Post 1283 on this thread

Courtney Mil

6th Mar 2016, 15:00

Thank you, D Sqn.

I can't see where Thomas Coupling got that gem from, but it isn't something I've seen elsewhere; he may have inside information, who knows. There was no expectation to publish before the Summer, but that was the AAIB estimate before they had reallt started the in-depth stuff. how the investigation has progressed since then would not be in the public domain; they wouldn't raise false hopes by suggesting an earlier date until they're ready to go.

Despite that, it's entirely possible that they're drafting now, but untill we see otherwise, I'm expecting the original date. Earlier, of course, would be good if they've finished.

Thomas coupling

7th Mar 2016, 18:44

D sqdrn:

As the AAIB stipulated in the Nov 2015 BADA meeting, they will feed findings into the CAA review in time for their (CAA) summary. This is to avoid the CAA having to re-adjust their summary at a later date when the AAIB promulgate theirs. The AAIB summary will take as long as it takes.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

8th Mar 2016, 15:54

But just to be clear.
You said the AAIB findings were sent to CAA mid February.

Courtney Mil

8th Mar 2016, 20:52

D Sqn, if you're referring to

Alvin steele: Yes the CAA will be privvy to the AAIB findings before they go to print in March. In fact I believe the findings went there last week.

Posted 19:33 21 Feb 2016 (Post #1283) I wondered about that too.

Flying Lawyer

8th Mar 2016, 22:54

The AAIB publishes Reports in the shortest time possible and, if possible, within 12 months of the accident/serious incident. It is not always possible. Accuracy of the Report is more important than speed of publishing.

Some here appear to regard the investigation of the Shoreham accident as straight-forward. I don't. A pilot's actions are an important part of any air accident investigation, but they are just one part. There are other factors to be investigated, particularly following an accident of this nature.
If they are to be of any value, safety recommendations can only be made after a thorough investigation.

After a draft report has been completed, there is a further stage before it can be published.

If the report is likely to adversely affect the reputation of any person(s), it cannot be published until those persons (or, if deceased, their representatives) have been given notice of what the report will contain and an opportunity to make representations. In this context, person includes organisations.
The notice must include particulars of any proposed analysis of facts and conclusions about the cause(s) of the accident/serious incident. In practice, the notice includes a copy of the proposed report which the recipients are required to keep confidential except for the purpose of taking specialist advice.

The AAIB is not obliged to make any changes suggested but is required by law to consider representations before publishing the Report.

Representations should be served upon the investigating inspector within 28 days of service of the notice. However, the Chief Inspector has power to grant extensions. Except in very simple cases, 28 days is too short a period for those concerned to fully consider the contents with their legal advisors, obtain independent expert advice and then prepare representations so extensions in such circumstances are often granted. Rightly so, in my opinion which is based upon experience.

The notice/representations stage delays publication of the Report but it is a necessary stage in the interests of fairness and accuracy as well as a legal requirement.

_______

Even if, as some here have suggested, the pilot intended to perform a loop and began it lower than his intended entry height, I don't understand why that would result in him crashing into the ground.
Depending upon entry height, it might (for example) in a Harvard because completion is sometimes lower than entry. (That may be my lack of skill.) But in a high energy aircraft such as a Hunter?
I've flown a few loops in a Hunter (under instruction) and didn't notice whether I completed them higher, lower or the same height as I began but I assume that an experienced Hunter pilot would be able to complete a loop by at least his entry height, probably higher.
Is my assumption wrong?

.

Heliport

8th Mar 2016, 23:24

Rigga
I find it interesting that GAPAN spin doctors seem to have redefined the CAA CEO's "resistance" as "declined to co-operate".

I would rudely assume that when the CAA and GAPAN met to discuss the issues, the CAA had already made its rule changes and that GAPAN didn't agree with them...

Something akin to "When an immovable object meets a self-righteous society..."

If you had said "wrongly assume" that would have been correct.
Your assumption is wrong.

You clearly know nothing about the nature of the Air Pilots (formerly GAPAN), its objectives or its achievements in promoting flight safety. It doesn't have 'spin doctors' (as you claim), nor is it self-righteous.

The Old Fat One
As an aside I had a quick look at the CAA executive and there are aviators amongst them, but perhaps in too small a number?

CAA Board members and officers: 12
Those with any aviation expertise/experience: 4
A former fast jet pilot,
a former manager at Delta Airlines (department not disclosed)/board member of the Manchester Airports Group,
a former Chief Inspector AAIB, and
ACAS (ex officio) who is an Engineer and PPL.

In addition, 4 people attend board meetings by virtue of their roles within the CAA.
Of those, only 1 has any aviation expertise/experience: A former RAF Regiment officer.

More specifically I think it very odd, to say the least, that the review body does not include more members with experience of organising and/or participating in air displays whether as pilots or Display Authorisation Evaluators or both.

Extract from the letter:… as late as mid 2015, Mr Haines was personally involved in trying to offload the responsibility for Airshow management, with its associated deregulation, to the British Air Display Association (BADA). BADA declined, as they perceived this to be a retrograde step with regard to regulatory oversight and fundamental safety.

I am not a member of BADA so don't know what led to this perception.
It struck me as a sensible proposal.

BEagle

9th Mar 2016, 07:08

Heliport, you are of course correct regarding the Company's aims.

However, I was rather surprised at the tone of the joint Company/BADA Press Release.

Pittsextra

9th Mar 2016, 10:33

FL @ post 1312.

First of all may I ask for your personal opinion on the GAPAN statement and how it might relate to various comments in this thread.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/574055-death-airshow-3.html

You ask:-

if, as some here have suggested, the pilot intended to perform a loop and began it lower than his intended entry height, I don't understand why that would result in him crashing into the ground. I assume that an experienced Hunter pilot would be able to complete a loop by at least his entry height, probably higher.
Is my assumption wrong?
The answer has already been hinted at earlier in this thread @ post 1073 where someone you have great respect for says:-

With respect to 1/4 clover type manoeuvres in an aircraft of the speed category of the Hunter, if you start as you suggest at less than 60 degrees nose up there will be a significant reduction in the apex height for a given g/pitch rate flown during the pull up; it also means that you will probably reach the apex not quite wings level or you will have to roll through more than 90 deg to achieve wings level. I have no experience of flying these manoeuvres in light aeroplanes and therefore if you do I defer to you knowledge in this category. However, in the category B, C and G aircraft that I display I frequently fly 1/4 clovers and I start to roll at about 80 deg nose up such that the roll is symmetrical about the vertical line. I think that this looks neater and it minimises the reduction in apex height. That element re: technique is IMO of significance, apex height, the management of that height and being alive to having a plan when that height isn't sufficient to pull through. The starting height allows for more latitude (i.e. if you start a 1/4 clover at 10000ft then you have a lot of range to fly it badly and/or deal with any other issues that get thrown at you.).

Recency specific to the figures and type being flown become contributory - what was that old sporting saying? "the more I practice the luckier I get". The 1/4 clover is an interesting figure because that description alone doesn't fully give you all the colour - i.e where is the rolling element? Answer that and consider if the Bray airshow the same display as Shoreham, did it even need to be?

Points helpful in managing risk one might argue.

Regards the AAIB process and the 28 days to review. If you had a hypothetical situation, lets imagine some point in the future, when the AAIB could not conclude the exact cause of an accident why should any statements of fact regarding the flight be subject to delay in publishing? by statements of fact I mean it was 1020mb pressure, nil wx, x hours on type, y litres of fuel, this was the profile of the flight, etc, etc

Also if the pilot himself has not contributed to the accident investigation process - by which I mean he may have died in the accident or survives and says he can not recall anything - who drives the review and what might their motives be?

Flying Lawyer

9th Mar 2016, 14:32

Pittsextra

Re the joint statement

Based upon the limited information available to me, I think the joint statement by BADA & the Air Pilots in response to the CAA Chief Executive's comments was, in general, justified and reasonable. NB: GAPAN ceased to exist in Feb 2014. See: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/534791-honourable-company-air-pilots.html
I have some reservations about a few aspects of the joint statement, but not about the overall tone.

I think it unfortunate, to say the least, that the CEO chose to make such comments when the CAA is at least going through the motions of consulting the air show community which, contrary to the impression he gave, shares the CAA stance re the paramount importance of safety at air shows.

Which comments in the Death of the Airshow thread do you have in mind?
Whilst I think a further review was inevitable and not unreasonable in the aftermath of Shoreham, I am strongly opposed to kneejerk reactions in the form of unnecessary rules and regulations – whether in aviation or elsewhere.

My question related to a loop - which some here think the Shoreham pilot intended, but I don't share their view.

Re the AAIB process

The AAIB should not, and could not properly, reach your hypothetical situation until it has carried out a thorough investigation.

Except where there are urgent safety reasons for publishing interim findings and making associated safety recommendations, there is no merit in my opinion in reporting piecemeal – which includes what you describe as statements of fact.

You appear to have misunderstood what I explained about the notice and opportunity for representations stage.
The AAIB "drives the review" throughout, regardless of circumstances.

Pittsextra

9th Mar 2016, 16:29

FL - on the joint statement fair enough although I'm not entirely sure that the statements view on those involved with safety review and the CAA's level of consultation, its motivations and the view that measures thus far have been rushed - should these elements of the statement be ones you align with - accord all that well with the other thread. In fairness water has passed under bridges since and it is what it is.

Question re: loop. Understood. Quite why its been referred to as "a manoeuvre with both a vertical and rolling component" by the AAIB only they know as its unlikely to have been described as that by anyone involved prior to the accident.

On AAIB - no you explained the process clearly and I'm sure 100% accurately but that wasn't the point of my question. When I said "drive the process" I was referring to the push to extend beyond 28 days or is that preempted by the AAIB?

Flying Lawyer

9th Mar 2016, 18:10

Pittsextra

As you say, water has passed under the bridge since then.

I was referring to the push to extend beyond 28 days or is that preempted by the AAIB.I'm not sure what you mean by "the push".
The Chief Inspector considers the reasons given in support of an application for an extension and decides whether or not to grant it. See my previous post: Representations should be served upon the investigating inspector within 28 days of service of the notice. However, the Chief Inspector has power to grant extensions. Except in very simple cases, 28 days is too short a period for those concerned to fully consider the contents with their legal advisors, obtain independent expert advice and then prepare representations so extensions in such circumstances are often granted. Rightly so, in my opinion which is based upon experience.In practice -
Applications for very short extensions are usually granted.
If a longer extension is requested then the reasons need to be correspondingly compelling.
If one or more party has already been granted an extension then it is unlikely that an application by another party for a shorter extension would be refused - because that would be silly.
The AAIB was not unreasonable in my experience but applications I drafted on behalf of parties were always supported by good reasons.

28 days might seem like a long period but in complex cases it is not.

Courtney Mil

9th Mar 2016, 20:42

PittsExtra,

Once again you're fishing for comments on the manoeuvre and how it was flown. I would have thought that, by now, you you would have realised that the well informed people here will not offer such an opinion.

AAIB may give you all the answers in time for the referendum.

Pittsextra

9th Mar 2016, 22:12

CM - I'm not fishing for anything, I was actually just responding to FL's question which you feel is necessary to get involved with.

Pontius Navigator

10th Mar 2016, 08:05

Pittsif you want a 1-2-1 with FL and don't want others, CM, butting in, why don't you save bandwidth and use a private message?

It will save us much time and angst

Flying Lawyer

10th Mar 2016, 10:18

Pittsextra

My question was intentionally specific. It related to the performance of a Hunter.
You, for your own reasons, chose to respond even though you have never flown a Hunter nor, I suspect, any other military jet.

When I read your wide-ranging response, I sighed and regretted not sending my question by PM to one of the people here who has. That was poor judgment by me.

Widger

10th Mar 2016, 13:02

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-special-bulletin-s12016-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi-update

Courtney Mil

10th Mar 2016, 13:02

Next Special Bulletin released. This is NOT the final report:

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/56e178f240f0b6037900001b/S1-2016_G-BXFI.pdf

airpolice

10th Mar 2016, 13:10

Given the burdens placed on Pilots and Operators by the CAA in many areas, how on earth do they have a situation where you can be "approved" just because a guy at the CAA knows you?

The CAA is responsible for ensuring that an FDD has the required competencies to manage the safety of the display, amongst other tasks.

The CAA stated that:

‘Currently a FDD is assessed on the basis of the personal knowledge of the CAA’s Flight Display Inspector about the individual, his competence and capabilities and any other specific intelligence from prior activities. Also taken into account are the arrangements being made for the flying display…

There is currently no written policy document that describes selection criteria for a person in relation to acceptance as a FDD’

Therefore the following Safety Recommendation is made:

Safety Recommendation 2016-032
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority specify the safety
management and other competencies that the organiser of a flying display
must demonstrate before obtaining a Permission under Article 162 of the Air
Navigation Order.

The CAA stated that it held a workshop as an element of a pre-season symposium in February 2016 as part of its strategy to improve the selection criteria for FDDs.

This Special Bulletin contains facts which have been determined up to the time of issue. It is published to inform the
aviation industry and the public of the general circumstances of accidents and serious incidents and should be regarded as
tentative and subject to alteration or correction if additional evidence becomes available.

EESDL

10th Mar 2016, 13:22

BBC news update!
You have to be kidding?
If it is true then it is incredible and I am now speechless..............what a bunch of amateurs!
Ok, almost speechless!

salad-dodger

10th Mar 2016, 13:33

EESDL, well said, speechless! The findings of this latest report do not come as any surprise though. But seeing it written down, in black and white, by the AAIB, that leaves me speechless.

As several of us have said on this thread and others, the immediate causes of this accident, e.g. tech failure, individual human error etc are not the most significant factor in this accident. The most important factors are that it was allowed to happen and on such a scale. This latest report has pulled apart the amateurish system of management, planning, training, regulation and governance that allowed it to happen. And that would be the amateurish system of management, planning, training, regulation and governance that many on this forum seem willing to defend to the hilt :ugh:

S-D

Onceapilot

10th Mar 2016, 13:38

Just read the special update. A considerable amount of ground covered. Well, seems unlikely to me that UK displays will survive as we knew them.:oh:

OAP

PhilipG

10th Mar 2016, 13:41

I would not like to be sitting on the Board of the CAA today.

Basil

10th Mar 2016, 13:59

CAA Board members and officers: 12
Those with any aviation expertise/experience: 4
A former fast jet pilot,
a former manager at Delta Airlines (department not disclosed)/board member of the Manchester Airports Group,
a former Chief Inspector AAIB, and
ACAS (ex officio) who is an Engineer and PPL.

I didn't know that and now that I've read it, I find it a bit disappointing.
I'd have thought that they lack:
1. A senior big jet training captain.
2. A senior ATCO.

airpolice

10th Mar 2016, 14:06

Once a Pilot

Well, seems unlikely to me that UK displays will survive as we knew them.

Let's hope not. Do any of us really want this kind of thing to continue?

I love watching the aircraft being displayed, but now that I know that there has been no real requirement for it to be subjected to a RA/MS process, I wonder how much longer we can expect to be required to fill out forms before climbing a ladder to tweak a satellite dish, but not have a display pilot say what he plans to do.

The general public, paying to watch or not, have a right to expect better from the aviation community.

Widger

10th Mar 2016, 14:52

Originally Posted by Heliport
CAA Board members and officers: 12
Those with any aviation expertise/experience: 4
A former fast jet pilot,
a former manager at Delta Airlines (department not disclosed)/board member of the Manchester Airports Group,
a former Chief Inspector AAIB, and
ACAS (ex officio) who is an Engineer and PPL.
I didn't know that and now that I've read it, I find it a bit disappointing.
I'd have thought that they lack:
1. A senior big jet training captain.
2. A senior ATCO.
Basil is online now

I think too many people have a lack of understanding of what a Board of any organisation is there to achieve. If you look at any organisation, there is always a mixture of experience and knowledge as their purpose is to hold an organisation to account.

If you look at British Airways:
An ex tobacco salesman - Chairman
An ex pilot
A chartered accountant
A petro-chemical expert and chairman of unilever
A solicitor
A financial expert
An investment banker and COO of Iberia
An ex Chief inspector of the AAIB
A life peer -ex politician

So pretty similar in all respects and I don't consider BA a failing organisation. They have more than enough technical experts in customer service, engineering and stick monkeying to give them advice.

the corporate governance code is what dictates the make up of a Board.

Corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled.
Boards of directors are responsible for the governance of their companies. The shareholders’ role in governance is to appoint the directors and the auditors and to satisfy themselves that an appropriate governance structure is in place. The responsibilities of the board include setting the company’s strategic aims, providing the leadership to put them into effect, supervising the management of the business and reporting to shareholders on their stewardship. The board’s actions are subject to laws, regulations and the shareholders in general meeting.

Corporate governance is therefore about what the board of a company does and how it sets the values of the company. It is to be distinguished from the day to day operational management of the company by full-time executives.

The board should be of sufficient size that the requirements of the business can be met and that changes to the board’s composition and that of its committees can be managed without undue disruption, and should not be so large as to be unwieldy.

The board should include an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors (and, in particular, independent non-executive directors) such that no individual or small group of individuals can dominate the board’s decision taking.

Flying Lawyer

10th Mar 2016, 15:14

airpolice
how on earth do they have a situation where you can be "approved" just because a guy at the CAA knows you?
That is a distortion of what the CAA said.‘Currently a FDD is assessed on the basis of the personal knowledge of the CAA’s Flight Display Inspector about the individual, his competence and capabilities and any other specific intelligence from prior activities.

Do any of us really want this kind of thing to continue?With a few changes to procedures/rules, Yes, I do.

I don't share the shock/outrage expressed by some.
That, in part, is because over a few decades I have read thousands of reports which make criticisms/proposals for improvement following a thorough examination and detailed analysis of every aspect of the system in place when an accident, fatal or otherwise, occurred - primarily in aviation but also elsewhere. Such documents can create a misleading impression.

Even if every recommendation made by the AAIB in this and its final report is implemented, the review following a serious accident some time in the future will inevitably produce criticisms/recommendations for improvement. That is inherent in the learning process

Equally inevitably, it will produce expressions of shock and outrage from some. That is inherent in human nature.

PhilipG
I would not like to be sitting on the Board of the CAA today.
Whether or not individual members are or even should be concerned, the content of the SB issued by the AAIB today might go some way towards explaining the previously inexplicable comments made by the CEO on behalf of the CAA last week.

[Edit]

Background Noise

Thank you for your very helpful response to my question.

Chugalug2

10th Mar 2016, 16:05

PG:-
I would not like to be sitting on the Board of the CAA today.

I for one will sit more comfortably in a UK civilian airline seat though, given this clear illustration of how the regulator can be brought to book by the accident investigator. That is a phenomena notable by its absence in UK military aviation where regulator, operator, and investigator are one and the same for all intents and purposes, ie the MOD.

Thomas coupling

10th Mar 2016, 16:12

Who in the CAA will fall on their sword then:
Andrew Haines?
Swan?
T Rapson?

This will change the shape of future airshows with or without the CAA. The lawyers will see to this.

Always remember (hope FL isn't listening!), there are only two people who rule this world as we know it:
Lawyers and accountants.:ouch:

Pittsextra

10th Mar 2016, 16:12

FL - I'd take the exasperation personally but for the fact that these events have been such a farce, amateur hour would be an uptick.

LOMCEVAK

10th Mar 2016, 16:26

FL, with respect to your comment in an earlier post "I assume that an experienced Hunter pilot would be able to complete a loop by at least his entry height, probably higher.
Is my assumption wrong?"

In a Hunter (and similar types) the loop entry speed and technique during the first, upward half of a looping should guarantee that the aircraft will exit no lower than the entry height. Obviously, it can be misflown such that the exit height is below the entry height but then any manoeuvre can be misflown such that the aircraft crashes! Therefore, your assumption was totally correct.

mtoroshanga

10th Mar 2016, 16:51

is it normal to carry out these manouvers with drop tanks (full,partly full or empty) fitted??

Pontius Navigator

10th Mar 2016, 17:56

Mtoro, yes, it just depends.

Courtney Mil

10th Mar 2016, 18:56

Mtoro,

I've never seen 372 without the tanks. So it's safe to say that it was its standard fit for display work-up, rehearsal and performance.

JFZ90

10th Mar 2016, 19:22

The report does make the regulation all seem a bit too cosy.

DA provided by someone in the same team - same as for the Gnat it seems. Page 22.

Anyone know any more about the incident when the FFD stopped the display - referred to on page 25.

I'm not sure the BADA bleat is entirely appropriate in the context of some aspects of this report. Perhaps not the best time to pop up from the parapet.

clareprop

10th Mar 2016, 19:59

Bottom line is, they're about to throw the book at him.

Arcanum

10th Mar 2016, 20:25

Bottom line is, they're about to throw the book at him.

Seems like there are plenty of lessons to be learned (or relearned) by many individuals and organisations. It would be unfortunate if he's the only one to be hit by said book - and that's assuming it's warranted given that the investigation isn't over yet.

The CAA letter in the Times certainly comes across like a pre-emptive shot based on early access to the report, BWTFDIK. On the other hand, the response by BADA came across as a little pompous in tone (I'm surprised that FL thought it was OK) and some of retorts (e.g. a system admired throughout Europe) are difficult to reconcile with the AAIB update.

Widger, a diverse board background makes sense for a publicly listed company like BA with the usual suspects of Chairman, CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, etc. I'd have thought that the CAA would have a board with more flight related experience, wouldn't you?

vintage ATCO

10th Mar 2016, 20:59

Just to clear up a point, it was not a letter in The Times but a small piece by Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent, quoting Andrew Haines, CAA CEO. It was published on Thu, 3 March, the same day as the CAA Press Release, but quotes more than what is in the press release. It would be interesting to know who contacted who first.

There was an even smaller piece in The Daily Telegraph on Sat, 5 March, but that was just based on the CAA Press Release.

Pontius Navigator

10th Mar 2016, 21:14

Regarding not knowing the diplasy plan, 30 years ago we had to tease out of the display team their time required and they were expected to comply with standard rules and local procedures.

It worked but in retrospect I am amazed that we didn't have notice of every display plan.

Pontius Navigator

10th Mar 2016, 21:17

JFZ, covered in this thread, several times and recently IIRC.

kwh

10th Mar 2016, 21:33

I think a high profile campaign from the airshow fraternity that started with 'Airshows make an absolute fortune for the local economy so the CAA charging to recover the cost of the work they do to regulate them is clearly unfair' - clearly made no sense when you deconstructed it. Then they followed it up with 'And anyway, we regulate ourselves and we know best/have done an exemplary job, this incident notwithstanding...', which is now shown up by this report to be ignorant hubris of the worst kind, thus neatly proving the opposite point to the one they were trying to make.

If small airshows can't do a reasonable job of not permitting old military jets with questionable maintenance histories to pull unplanned low level high energy manoeuvres over the local village on their own, then the CAA is going to have to do it for them, and I really don't see why the taxpayer or anybody else should subsidise the cost of that oversight.

JFZ90

10th Mar 2016, 21:47

kwh. Yes, it seems you have captured the apparent foot shooting by the BADA in what you write.

PN, I have only been skimming this due to the prolonged debates. Been back a few pages but I don't recall reading the history of the 2014 FDD display stop. If you could point me in the direction I'd be grateful.

theonewhoknows

10th Mar 2016, 22:03

At military airshows it is a requirement to know exactly what a display sequence consists of. If this isn't the case for civilian airshows, then there is clearly at lack of oversight/logic! I believe there were fundamental failures in supervision and control.

airpolice

10th Mar 2016, 22:24

Flying Lawyer wrote:

airpolice
Quote:
how on earth do they have a situation where you can be "approved" just because a guy at the CAA knows you?
That is a distortion of what the CAA said.
Quote:
‘Currently a FDD is assessed on the basis of the personal knowledge of the CAA’s Flight Display Inspector about the individual, his competence and capabilities and any other specific intelligence from prior activities.

So, I'll re-word my entry, as follows:

just because a guy at the CAA thinks you are up to the job?

Quite apart from looking shoddy, such an arrangement is doing no favours for the FDD. Should the CAA man move on and be replaced mid season with a stranger, what chance is there of the FDD getting another authority?

Look at the course content for the ATPL exams that youngsters are required to pass, some with little relevance to what they will be doing, and now we find there is not a clearly defined yardstick for FDD.

Flying_Anorak

10th Mar 2016, 22:27

JFZ - I think they are referring to AH's departure from his planned display in a JP at Southport (?) which resulted in a 'knock it off' from the FDD.

airpolice

10th Mar 2016, 22:34

JFZ90, Post 962 on Page 49 of this thread is where you ought to start reading.

JFZ90

10th Mar 2016, 22:51

thanks for the pointers.

i won't comment further but i think i can see where this is going.

Tankertrashnav

10th Mar 2016, 23:08

On a lighter note - BBC news still talking about "looping the loop" :ugh:

Reheat On

11th Mar 2016, 07:02

so ...

It would appear that in future each display will carry much a need for more planning [both cost and skill + time implications] for both the organisers and the pilots, and likely every display will have to be individually authorised based upon displays being adjusted for the local conditions.

Blanket season DAs look like being a thing of the past

Is it me of have the limits quietly been pushed over time and the inevitable accident waiting to happen has .. er .. happened.

As an ex handler of the control column I find myself thinking what happened to plenty of power, maintaining energy and gate heights?

I attended many displays last year [including Sh.] and found myself shockingly wondering if anyone actually believed it could all go horribly wrong any more?

The illusion of of invincibility usually carries a price.

Ho hum. Busy times for some.

Flying Lawyer

11th Mar 2016, 08:34

TC

I don't think anyone in the CAA needs to fall on their sword.
Learn from the experience, introduce necessary changes and move forward.Always remember (hope FL isn't listening!), there are only two people who rule this world as we know it: Lawyers and accountants.In this context, there's force in what you say. We live in a litigious world.
Although the public is bombarded by solicitors' firms and their agents with 'No win, no fee' ads encouraging personal injury claims following any sort of accident, many people need no encouragement to try to find someone to sue and obtain compensation. The blame/compensation culture is widespread.

I noticed that some solicitors firms were very quick to ensure that their services were publicised (indirectly advertised) in the media yesterday. One was so quick to do so that he described the recommendations as being made by the CAA. :rolleyes:
Business is business, I suppose.

LOMCEVAK
Thank you for answering my question.

Pontius Navigator

11th Mar 2016, 08:57

Quite a few years ago, back in the 80s, I saw a very nifty graphic of shall we say a display sequence (it wasn't) with the flight path of the aircraft shown by a ribbon. Where the aircraft banked and turned this was shown by a change in ribbon presentation.

This graphic developed from radar tracking was set against an outline area map.

It should be possible to create a display graphic for a given display and then superimpose it on a particular display site. Where the flight path infringes avoidance areas then clearly there is a risk that may be avoided or mitigated.

In the first instance air show organisers could provide their base plan to display teams. In the second display teams could return the combined graphic demonstrating their proposal for a low risk display.

That software was around over 30 years ago; it should be possible to introduce it for the 2017 season.

kwh

11th Mar 2016, 09:27

Never mind radar, these days when a smartphone has multi- axis inertial tracking and GPS built in, it should be perfectly possible to get the necessary 3D display data on the display routine from a device in the display pilot's pocket (maybe even literally from a smartphone app).

PhilipG

11th Mar 2016, 09:33

Flying Lawyer my point in post 1392 was that I would not like to be sitting on the board of the CAA at the moment, particularly as a non exec.

If we are agreed that the role of a non exec is basically corporate governance, as far as I understand they have not asked the question "Are our systems as regards air show regulation fit for purpose?"

I make this comment as there is no reference in the AAIB report of any changes having been made to CAA procedures, the AAIB report does suggest a number of changes are at least desirable.

It could thus be construed that as exhibited, the CAA at least in this part of its operations is not a learning organisation and the Board was quite happy with the arrangements that were in place, not a view I would like to try and support.

The drafting of the final CAA report may well be an interesting exercise.

Wetstart Dryrun

11th Mar 2016, 10:05

I think a pilot doing a demo is mainly concentrating on the display line and crowd centre. Maybe overlaying a 'normal' plotted path might give overflight warnings, but avoidances are likely to break the rhythm of a well rehearsed performance (?)

Avoiding populated area overflights might give compliance with the 'good taste' aspects of a safe display, but accidents diverge from the planned flight path. A catastrophic birdstrike could put the column of greasy smoke anywhere. An FCU/linkage failure would stop the plan in its tracks and mandate a direct dart back towards the field.

i think most car accidents happen within a mile of home. Most air display accidents (very very few) happen near an airfield and big crowds and jammed roads... Over the sea displays would plaice an unacceptible risk on fish stocks.

Flying Lawyer

11th Mar 2016, 22:45

PhilipGFlying Lawyer my point in post 1392 was that I would not like to be sitting on the board of the CAA at the moment, particularly as a non exec.
I understood your point.
I don't share your view.

I make this comment as there is no reference in the AAIB report of any changes having been made to CAA procedures,
I would not expect to see them in the SB. If you are interested in learning about the changes the CAA has already made, you will need to look at the CAA website. The most recent changes were published on line about a week before the SB was issued.
The next batch of changes is likely to be published next month.
Information concerning the ongoing review is also available.

the AAIB report does suggest a number of changes are at least desirable.
I agree some are desirable.
Others are not practical and/or not proportionate, in my view.

It could thus be construed that as exhibited, the CAA at least in this part of its operations is not a learning organisation and the Board was quite happy with the arrangements that were in place, not a view I would like to try and support.

Your suggestion is based upon a false premise: See above re changes already made.
I would be content to defend the CAA's pre and post Shoreham stance.
As I said earlier, I don't share the shock/outrage expressed by some. (I explained some of my reasons.)

Whilst no-one could fail to have great sympathy for the deceased and their families, the proper way forward lies in an unemotional dispassionate assessment of what changes to the pre Shoreham system need to be made to reduce future risk(s). Short of prohibiting air shows, zero risk is not attainable.

I disagree with some aspects of the CAA's ongoing post Shoreham review, primarily constitution and process, but that is a separate issue.

andrewn

11th Mar 2016, 23:33

FL - appreciate your well posed responses.

Simplistically, is it not the case that the regulator and governing body (CAA) failed to react to the changing nature of air displays in the UK?

I'm not a pilot, but I have attended many displays across the globe over the last 35yrs, and this kind of occurence was more a matter of when not if.

For example, as recently as the Gnat accident at Oulton Park (which I witnessed), there was opportunity to "call time" on the lax regulations that governed displays by privately owned vintage high performance jets at UK displays.

Honestly, who here could ever be comfortable with high performance, swept wing, ex-mil jets being flown at public displays in high energy manoeuvres, by part-time FJ pilots with low type experience, low currency, sometimes in formations, flying un-briefed routines in sometimes marginal weather at unsuitable venues?

Tourist

12th Mar 2016, 08:48

"Honestly, who here could ever be comfortable with high performance, swept wing, ex-mil jets being flown at public displays in high energy manoeuvres, by part-time FJ pilots with low type experience, low currency, sometimes in formations, flying un-briefed routines in sometimes marginal weather at unsuitable venues?"

Me!
It ranks so low on the actual rather than perceived risk register of life that I would be perfectly happy to have them continue in fact I will be upset if they stop.
Life is all about risk vs reward, and to be risk free life stops being worth living.

Thomas coupling

12th Mar 2016, 09:18

Tourist,
this is all of our own making, though.
We live in a litigious society probably brought on by the americans, I suspect where ambulance chasers and over zealous lawyers are keen to give victims 'free' money.
Where there is an incident, there is money, so the regulastors are forced to regulate further to avoid another claim from a similar incident.
Look at pot holes in the road, coffee served which is too hot, driving in the middle lane of the motorway, using goggles to play conkers in the playground. And this is low level stuff.
This airshow incident is the first of several 'tree shakes' in the airshow industry and it is the lawyers and no-one else who are causing all this back lash.
Society will regulate risk out of existence if it is allowed to, mark my words.

I speak to very many people in this industry, it is a small, closed shop network predominently consisting of olds and bolds and these people never worried about risk, it was not in their vocabulary. But now they live in a society where exclamation marks are not to be taught in classrooms anymore for fear of upsetting someone !!!!!!!!

It will NEVER be the same again, the challenge is, can it adapt to maintain its attraction?

LOMCEVAK

12th Mar 2016, 09:22

mtoroshanga,

Re #1338, 100 gal tanks on the inboards pylons, which is what WV372 had, is my preferred configuration for displaying a Hunter because you have more forward stick authority for negative g manoeuvres (slow rolls, inverted passes etc) than in a totally clean aircraft. There are no detrimental flying qualities aspects at all and the limits are the same with and without these tanks. With respect to whether or not they contain fuel, again there are no differences in the limits so it is just an all up mass concern.

Sir George Cayley

12th Mar 2016, 09:53

As a youngster, plane spotter and total aviation person, going to airshows was a big part of my hobby. Lost count of how many both here and abroad but not of the fatal and non-fatal crashes I've witnessed.

I was an avid collector of air show brochures, display team hand-outs and if lucky display pilots notes. Amazing what you could get if you just asked.

Sadly it all went a few years ago bar a couple of precious mementos. But, I recall many notes describing in advance the display routine including commentators notes so they could direct the crowd's attention to photo opportunities.

The Rothmans displays were always the same, so too the Sky Hawks aerial ballet to Pink Floyd. More importantly I remember Adrian Gjertson's red Hunter routine and other FJs being scripted. That's not to say there weren't occasions when things changed mid-display but the notion all FJ displays were assembled from a menu of possible manoeuvres doesn't fit with my recollection.

I've only aerobatted light a/c but always set off with a planned sequence. Aresti gave a notation to help us pilots with that.

CAA vs BADA/Guild of seems inevitable and planting something in the Times looks like a strategic move especially just ahead of the AAIB bulletin.

SGC

Basil

12th Mar 2016, 11:04

Life is all about risk vs reward, and to be risk free life stops being worth living.
A valid point for those of us who have placed ourselves in harms way but not so for uninvolved people on a public highway.

Pittsextra

12th Mar 2016, 11:45

This has nothing to do with risk v reward, dumbing things down, lawyers, society being risk adverse, the media... choose your own sound bite. Nor for that matter being over emotive or outraged.

What has happened here is just depressing because it is becoming increasingly apparent that actually it wasn't for the lack of awareness of risk and there was already in existence actual regulation that could have applied or the very obvious intent of what should have been best practice.

Many involved in this process - including the regulator - have just strayed from professionally managed risk toward a point on a line that ultimately leads to getting away with uncontrolled recklessness. You can put the marker however far down that line you like but ultimately this time it led to people being killed as a direct result of a combination of inability to manage identified risk, apply and enforce current regulation and maintain a rigorous process and culture of safety that would be consistent with any other aviation activity.

An insight to the CAA's mindset was given at a recent meeting relevant to this type of activity. The very senior CAA representative was asked a question about how he should manage risk effectively at his airshow. His concern was that some risks were not always under his control - and he cited the situation where during the display days a host of local public residents set-up shop and opened their land to spectators and for the purposes of car parking, food stalls, etc.

Could the CAA give him some guidance? A reasonable question and one might think a sensible one to ask given recent events. You know what the response was?

The CAA guy laughed and said "you'd better speak to your lawyers".....

A grin and a flippant remark to allow him to move on and dodge any personal insight, activity or heaven forbid responsibility. That is the reality of the people who are the custodians of what we love and do.

Basil

12th Mar 2016, 13:44

The CAA guy laughed and said "you'd better speak to your lawyers".....
A fair response to people who were making a profit from, but not contributing to, a commercial venture.
Had he given them official advice, other than to say "Don't", he could then be held responsible for part of their operation.

Out Of Trim

12th Mar 2016, 14:41

How can an Airshow Organsation be held responsible for the General Public congregating in areas outside of the 'Airshow"? They may be aware of the possibility but, they do not have any power to have them moved. Those persons watching from an uncontrolled vantage point do so at their own risk.

Perhaps in the case of Shoreham, the Local Authorities should have closed the A27 to traffic during the Airshow; much like various roads are closed during Road Cycling events.

I agree, that the Display Routines should be known and approved prior to the Airshow and monitored closely by suitably qualified staff. Obvious risk needs to be mitigated but, can never be 100% safe. Life isn't like that. Things can go wrong and end up in an accident; no matter what you do.

Wander00

12th Mar 2016, 14:52

OOT-good point. Roads get closed for cycle events, running events, why not airshows (and cycling events are an absolute intrusion and PIA in the New Forest)

skridlov

12th Mar 2016, 15:34

" Roads get closed for cycle events, running events, why not airshows"

I live in the Shoreham area. I travel along this stretch of the A27 frequently. For many years I've either attended the RAAFA show or watched from local vantage points. I saw the Hurricane accident which occurred barely a couple of hundred yards from the Hunter crash. Whilst hoping that the possibility of similar tragedies is minimised I abhor the likelihood of this historically important commemoration being abolished or neutered.

But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area?

Out Of Trim

12th Mar 2016, 16:13

But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area? In the aftermath of the tragic accident at Shoreham, the local traffic was diverted around the closed A27 junction for quite some time. Many roads are closed for events and the locals have to pre-plan their movements and deal with it the best they can. Every summer, the London to Surrey Hills and back cycling event closes many roads for most of the weekend. This mitigates the risk to both the spectators and the riders during the event.

Why not? Do the same for airshows, to mitigate the risk to passing traffic on a road close to the planned flight path.

Wetstart Dryrun

12th Mar 2016, 16:29

.....Errrr, 'scuse me for being stupid, but how do you get to the Airshow if all the roads around the airport are shut because they are too close to an Airshow?

LOMCEVAK

12th Mar 2016, 16:34

W D,

Fly in, of course ......

Wetstart Dryrun

12th Mar 2016, 16:47

Please signal ETA, will need to close the roads.

clareprop

12th Mar 2016, 17:45

At the trials - for there will be trials, the questions will be, What would a 'reasonably minded' air-show organiser be expected to do to protect the safety of paying attendees, displayers, staff and people around the perimeter of the airfield? The same questions will be asked of the display pilot eg, How would a reasonable display pilot be expected to behave when performing his/her routine. The only people able to give evidence on those subjects will be air-show organisers and display pilots. The process will give a steer on how air-shows will take place in the UK in future. However, that will pale into insignificance when compared to the emotional pain the bereaved are going to feel. My thoughts are with them.

theonewhoknows

12th Mar 2016, 19:04

" Roads get closed for cycle events, running events, why not airshows"

"I live in the Shoreham area. I travel along this stretch of the A27 frequently. For many years I've either attended the RAAFA show or watched from local vantage points. I saw the Hurricane accident which occurred barely a couple of hundred yards from the Hunter crash. Whilst hoping that the possibility of similar tragedies is minimised I abhor the likelihood of this historically important commemoration being abolished or neutered."

"But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area?"

My view - don't have airshows that endanger the public. It's really quite a simple concept. Aerobatic manoeuvres are over the airfield. The MSD requirements allow for crashes. Someone may screw up - it happens. But due diligence should militate against this. Maybe it's down to the quality of the Display Director and the FCC!

dsc810

12th Mar 2016, 19:21

...and it took just three days before the first fatality was recorded on the A27 divert route post the accident/road closure.
20-year-old driver killed in head-on collision on A27 diversion (From ) (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13626693.20_year_old_driver_killed_in_head_on_collision_on_A 27_diversion/)

Courtney Mil

12th Mar 2016, 19:51

An insight to the CAA's mindset was given at a recent meeting relevant to this type of activity. The very senior CAA representative was asked a question about how he should manage risk effectively at his airshow. His concern was that some risks were not always under his control - and he cited the situation where during the display days a host of local public residents set-up shop and opened their land to spectators and for the purposes of car parking, food stalls, etc.

Could the CAA give him some guidance? A reasonable question and one might think a sensible one to ask given recent events. You know what the response was?

The CAA guy laughed and said "you'd better speak to your lawyers".....

A grin and a flippant remark to allow him to move on and dodge any personal insight, activity or heaven forbid responsibility. That is the reality of the people who are the custodians of what we love and do.

Please explain what meeting, your involvement in it and the provenance of your knowledge of this.

theonewhoknows

12th Mar 2016, 20:13

"...and it took just three days before the first fatality was recorded on the A27 divert route post the accident/road closure. 20-year-old driver killed in head-on collision on A27 diversion."

Please explain your point.

Pontius Navigator

12th Mar 2016, 20:26

I imagine he is suggesting that the death would not have occurred had the diversion not been in effect. In other words the death was an (in)direct result of the air show crash.

LlamaFarmer

13th Mar 2016, 19:30

The A27 is hardly a safe road, the diversion may well have prevented fatal traffic collisions that would otherwise have happened.

Tourist

14th Mar 2016, 06:47

A valid point for those of us who have placed ourselves in harms way but not so for uninvolved people on a public highway.
I'm interested to know if you apply this standard to other aspects of life other than aviation?

What I mean is that trying to protect others from the consequences of your actions becomes unworkable if you think about it for a little while.

For example:-

1. Shall I take my car for a nice drive today?

If we subject that idea to the same inspection that you want to do to an aerobatic display, we would have to ask.

a. Am I adding risk to "uninvolved people on a public highway" who have not volunteered to accept that risk? Demonstrably yes for any car journey.
b. Will the emissions from my car adversely affect others who have not given their permission? Yes, both in the short term with pollution and long term global warming. You might argue that this is not the same as killing some spectators, but I would argue that you are adding to a cumulative effect that has the potential to wipe out civilisation.
Added to this is the fact that using fuel supports medieval regimes who rely on the wests greed for oil thus perpetuating the horror their people suffer.

2. Shall I go on holiday?
a. Am I adding risk to others by adding to the number of flights over their head? Obviously yes.
b. Am I polluting thus affecting the health of others? Yes, Obviously.

My point is that everything we do has a greater or lessor effect on others. I am never quite sure why we hold aviation to completely different standards to any other industry.

Cars on roads kill 1 million people per year.
Shoreham was a spectacular one-off, equal to winning the lottery 3 weeks in a row.

My own personal belief is that the only reason we hold flight to different rules is that for some reason flight has glamour and excitement and fear attached to it.

Heathrow Harry

14th Mar 2016, 09:41

and when it goes wrong it kills a lot or people in one go......................

Basil

14th Mar 2016, 09:52

Tourist, that's easy to answer:
1.
a. Most people use mechanical transport whether private or public.
b. Everyone uses energy derived from burning fuel for heating, cooling, lighting or food & goods transport.
2. Almost everyone in the developed World flies at some time in their life or consumes food or goods delivered by air.

So, we are ALL involved.

In the case of an air display only those who are interested in aviation or, at least, an entertaining day out are involved. Those driving past are not and may never have been.

I do think we're getting close to angels on the point of a pin here.

idle bystander

14th Mar 2016, 11:48

Tourist:
My point is that everything we do has a greater or lessor effect on others. I am never quite sure why we hold aviation to completely different standards to any other industry.Because we have a God-(or Dawkins)-given fear of heights and know that flying is intrinsically an extremely dangerous occupation for a heavy creature that doesn't have wings. The fact that flying is so comparatively safe and accidents are so comparatively rare, is due to the entirely laudable safety culture that has grown up around aviation.
Way back, when I served as a humble badger (of sorts) in the real Ark Royal, I was impressed and strongly influenced by the fact that throughout the entire ship, from deck 9 upwards, one would find "Flight Safety is everyone's business" posters - a vital message that is, I feel, unique to the aviation business.
This state of affairs is undermined by the obvious amateurishness and ineptitude of those responsible for the Shoreham display as shown in the AAIB Special Bulletin. Those (some of them on this forum) who are blasé about Shoreham, who say "let's move on, lesson have been learned, etc", are contributing to the decline in professional and safety standards that the Shoreham disaster exemplifies. The only reaction a professional should feel is outrage that his profession has been so badly let down.

Sillert,V.I.

14th Mar 2016, 12:17

Shoreham was a spectacular one-off, equal to winning the lottery 3 weeks in a row.

IMO nothing could be further from the truth. The real risk was likely much higher than anyone thought, prior to the event.

Anyone wanting to properly understand this would do well to study the Challenger accident and in particular the comments made by Professor Feynman, one of the few people involved in the investigation to have a sufficiently rigorous scientific background to understand the risk analysis failures which led to that event. I've included this link (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt)to the relevant appendix from the Rogers report into the Shuttle disaster.

Prior to the Challenger disaster, NASA had stated the probability of a catastrophic Shuttle event was less than 1 in 100,000; Feynman's post-crash analysis showed this to be closer to 1 in 100.

Avtur

14th Mar 2016, 12:27

I believe there were 135 space shuttle launches with two catastrophic events, so 1 in 67.

Fortissimo

14th Mar 2016, 12:35

Idle:

This state of affairs is undermined by the obvious amateurishness and ineptitude of those responsible for the Shoreham display as shown in the AAIB Special Bulletin.

I don't read the SB in the same way you do, nor do I think you can criticise the organisers as being amateur or inept in this way. The FDD had every reason to believe that the arrangements were compliant with CAP 403, and it is instructive that all the AAIB recommendations are addressed to the CAA.

As Sillert notes in his comments about the Challenger accident, the risk assessments were shown after the event to be flawed (and it is always easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight); like Shoreham, Challenger resulted from a process problem rather than amateurism or ineptitude. Tragic though the outcome was, I don't agree that Shoreham 'exemplifies a decline' in professionalism or safety standards, but it does show clearly that the regulations and guidance being applied were not adequate for the task in light of today's understanding of risk.

andrewn

14th Mar 2016, 12:44

Tourist,

As others are stating the issue here isn't that there is risk in flying displays, everyone knows that and a level of risk applies to many things we do on a daily basis.

The point that I personally am uncomfortable with is that, from the outside looking in, it was becoming increasingly obvious that a Shoreham type event was ever more likely. The regulator should have adapted to the changing nature of air displays over the last 20-30yrs, be they the types of planes being displayed, the people displaying them, the people overseeing them, the venues themselves, etc, etc. You only need take a cursory look at the various reports/bulletins released post-Shoreham to understand that the CAA (& AAIB) also acknowledge this.

The tragedy for the industry is that, instead of gently shifting with the times, proactively tightening things up where required, etc it is now faced with a magnitude of change that could kill it off entirely

Cows getting bigger

14th Mar 2016, 13:14

Shoreham was inevitable. As others have said, oversight, complacency, apathy etc all led to 11 people being killed.

The FDD had every reason to believe that the arrangements were compliant with CAP 403, and it is instructive that all the AAIB recommendations are addressed to the CAA.

FDD "reason to believe"? One presumes he is one of the experts identified by BADA in their statement of a few weeks back?

It should be obvious that the expertise for the disciplines of all aspects of displays largely resides with the air display community itself; the CAA is populated in the main by officials, many of whom having little or no understanding of aviation, let alone the complexities of aerobatic flying display routines.

So, did the FDD use his expertise or did he just ensure that the CAA box was ticked?

Tourist

14th Mar 2016, 13:18

As someone who displayed military aircraft occasionally and in a fairly haphazard way over a period of over a decade, nothing could be further from the truth, no matter how it might be seen from the outside.

I have seen/displayed aircraft that did not have a routine planned, let alone a display auth or anything like it.

Nowadays is much much stricter.

The reason that a Shoreham has not happened before is because it is incredibly unlikely to happen, not because of a dropping in display standards.

There is no decline.
Displays have never been safer, but the current hysteria about safety is accelerating faster than safety can keep up.

Cows getting bigger

14th Mar 2016, 14:42

Tourist, Shoreham was always unsafe, just look at the geography. The casualties were on the display axis about 150m from the end of the runway. Meanwhile paying spectators were at least 230m laterally displaced from the display axis. It doesn't take a masters degree in geometry (or indeed air display expertise) to figure the least unlikely location of a crash.

Tourist

14th Mar 2016, 15:26

Cows, with respect that is utter tosh.

Even a cursory google will show that the location of airshow crashes is scattered all over the place.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other crash that was off the extended threshold of a runway.
This was a very strange crash in that the manoeuvre was a mild positioning event rather than anything tricky.

The simple fact is that it is not possible to fly a display without overflying houses, cars, people, town etc.

Go and have a look at what is under Fairfords display area. Or Culdrose/Helston. Or Yeovilton/Ilchester.

You cannot display without overflying the public.

Cows getting bigger

14th Mar 2016, 16:00

Tourist, I guess we will just have to disagree.

cessnapete

14th Mar 2016, 18:19

Cows getting bigger.
Using your opinion. Without closing down most air shows. How do you propose avoiding flying over the public? At Farnborough most fast jets and airline displays fly over Aldershot, Farnborough town etc. Unless you are in a light aircraft or F16 etc you cannot restrict aircraft to within the airfield boundary.
Accidents happen, luckily very infrequently.
How about closing Heathrow too? I frequently flew 400t aircraft at low level over the surrounding roads.

Cows getting bigger

14th Mar 2016, 18:24

cessnaplate, I presume your 400t aircraft hadn't approached Heathrow having been inverted some seconds earlier.

Look, I don't particularly have an opinion. But surely there is a degree of nonsense in having a system whereby paying spectators must be at least 230m laterally displaced from a display line whilst others, non-paying or not involved, can be right underneath the display axis within 150m of the threshold? Are we really saying that this risk has always been adequately mitigated by ignorant regulator or display expert?

andrewn

14th Mar 2016, 20:05

CGB/Tourist, my recollection (which may be wrong) is that RAFAT stopped displaying at Shoreham a number of years ago as the venue was considered unsuitable.

As has been noted you'd struggle to find any venue in UK that doesn't involve overflying some minor roads or non-participant members of public. The difference with Shoreham is that the tight confines of the airfield plus built up areas plus A27 made sure that "safe" options to put down (planned or otherwise) were particularly limited.

Chesty Morgan

14th Mar 2016, 20:41

Me!
It ranks so low on the actual rather than perceived risk register of life that I would be perfectly happy to have them continue in fact I will be upset if they stop.
Life is all about risk vs reward, and to be risk free life stops being worth living.

Exactly. One fatal incident in 60 odd years. For some perspective that's over half the entire history of powered flight.

G-CPTN

14th Mar 2016, 20:43

you'd struggle to find any venue in UK that doesn't involve overflying some minor roads or non-participant members of public.

Sunderland (International) Airshow has an ideal venue, with the (non-paying) spectators (who contribute generously via collections and associated purchases) arranged on the shore (and, also, well inland) with the aircraft arriving along the coast (with the occasional approach from inland).

Over the years the display line has been moved further and further out (it is no longer possible to get soaked by a Harrier hovering - even if they were still around), but this means that you see the aircraft for longer as they spread along the skyline.

Shame that we are no longer treated to supersonic bangs from Lightnings (as we were at Acklington back in the 1950s).

andytug

14th Mar 2016, 21:09

Ditto Southport and Blackpool, although the Red Arrows do overfly bits of both, most aircraft fly up and down the beach, arriving and departing from either end.

theonewhoknows

14th Mar 2016, 21:10

Easy to say. You are alive!

cessnapete

14th Mar 2016, 21:49

Cows getting bigger.
You still haven't answered, how, in your opinion, other than the cancellation of many air displays. You prevent display aircraft while displaying, flying over the local public adjacent to the venue.
The inverted manoeuvre of the Hunter prior to display is a control, and loose article check, quite normal, and not as you appear to insinuate a reckless act.

Tourist

15th Mar 2016, 05:30

But surely there is a degree of nonsense in having a system whereby paying spectators must be at least 230m laterally displaced from a display line whilst others, non-paying or not involved, can be right underneath the display axis within 150m of the threshold?
There we are in absolute agreement.
I personally believe that ticket buyers should sign an agreement accepting risk and be allowed much closer and crowd line rules should be relaxed.

Stitchbitch

15th Mar 2016, 06:26

I flew to a French show once where they had the crowd line aced. If viewed from above you had the crowd line, display aircraft parking, a small earth berm, the display line and then the runway. The dl seemed to be variable with jets at 100 meters or so from the crowd and Pistons a little closer, enough to get a good view and enjoy the sound! With the parking in front of the crowd there was always something going on for the punters to watch.

theonewhoknows

15th Mar 2016, 18:06

Tourist,

Are you serious?

Tay Cough

15th Mar 2016, 20:32

Stitch,

The same applies in the UK. Your speed dictates the display line distance (not jet or prop, although props are generally slower of course).

Tourist

16th Mar 2016, 05:22

Tourist,

Are you serious?
Yes.
I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to choose their own risk levels in life rather than have them mandated by a nanny state. People should be allowed to chose whether to sit really close to the crowdline, or not. Choose whether to dangerous things or not.
Life is far safer in the UK than it used to be, and far duller.
The modern world seems to have come to the conclusion that the purpose of life is to exist for as long as possible rather than experience as much as possible.

I disagree.

abgd

16th Mar 2016, 06:05

But surely there is a degree of nonsense in having a system whereby paying spectators must be at least 230m laterally displaced from a display line whilst others, non-paying or not involved, can be right underneath the display axis within 150m of the threshold?

Not necessarily: a jet crashing into a crowd could have caused orders of magnitude more casualties than a jet crashing into a field with a farmer and a few non-paying spectators.

Tourist

16th Mar 2016, 06:39

abgd

If you are dead, you are still dead. Why is dying in a crowd any different?

cessnapete

16th Mar 2016, 07:14

Why can't we accept accidents have and always will happen. You can't eradicate risk with paperwork and massive fees increase, as CAA appears to believe.
Same scenario as public killed in Glasgow street by errant Bin Lorry

Arfur Dent

16th Mar 2016, 16:47

Major causal factor with the 'bin lorry' incident was that the driver was not fit to carry out his job. It was wholly avoidable.
Whether the CAA review the currency issues regarding Airline Pilots displaying Fast Jets once a month with little or no other recent time on type remains to be seen.

NutLoose

16th Mar 2016, 16:57

And in the case of the Hunter, the longer the grounding, the increased lack of currency on type.

Alber Ratman

16th Mar 2016, 19:48

Nutty, you seriously think many G registered Hunters will regain their PtFs?

wigglyamp

16th Mar 2016, 20:52

Is this related to the Shoreham accident:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/16-02.pdf

NutLoose

16th Mar 2016, 21:00

Errrr no, I don't think so, I think you might find that incident has happened since.

wigglyamp

16th Mar 2016, 21:05

The active HHA aircraft at Scampton are on the military register under MAA control.

NutLoose

16th Mar 2016, 21:06

Thanks for clarifying that as I wasn't sure. I have taken the post down.

Martin the Martian

16th Mar 2016, 22:38

So who was it who was saying that seaside displays are safer? Maybe someone wants to tell the MAA.

Cornwall Red Arrows show cancelled over safety fears - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-35821457)

BEagle

17th Mar 2016, 08:18

Tourist wrote: I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to choose their own risk levels in life rather than have them mandated by a nanny state.

Is that an attitude you maintain when flying?

Tourist

17th Mar 2016, 08:27

It is my attitude at all times.

It goes along with my attitude that I always obey rules but try to change the ones I disagree with.

I have never been considered a risk taker, but I do crave the right to make my own decisions about risk in life.

Cows getting bigger

17th Mar 2016, 08:45

Hmmm, I wonder whether the cyclists or the chauffeur were of the same thinking just before a few tonnes of Hunter smashed into them.

I'm all for personal risk but when it directly affects another individual......

Aviation killed 11 people that day; it is exceptionally glib of aviation professionals to just call the event an accident.

Tourist

17th Mar 2016, 09:06

Yet you drive a car every day without worrying about killing others or being killed, despite the fact that the chances of either are vastly higher than your chances of being killed by a passing aviation professional.

Once you are dead you are dead.
It matters not how you die.
If you are actually serious about risk, you need to deal with actual risks, rather than perceived ones.
There are 1000 causes of death more likely than being hit by a display aircraft, yet are people stressing about every one of them?

No.

People stress about this because humans are truly awful about risk assessment.
Truly.
Awful.

Basil

17th Mar 2016, 11:04

Life is far safer in the UK than it used to be, and far duller.
Leaving my TA, RAF and airline employment out of the discussion:
As one who came very close to death in industry and the Merchant Navy I prefer things to be safer.
As a skier, yachtsman and scuba diver I do not feel that I have led a dull life at all.
Oh, now I remember, also nearly drowned as a child and almost had 5cwt of chain dumped on top of me when diving on a mooring.

Yet you drive a car every day without worrying about killing others or being killed
Most others also drive and are, therefore, involved.
Those killed at Shoreham were not involved.

I recollect, just as I joined my first RAF OCU, one of our aircraft crashed in Lybia killing all on board. The embarrassing part was that we, the RAF, had also killed some Army personnel who were on board and they WERE professionally involved.

Tourist

17th Mar 2016, 11:15

As a skier, yachtsman and scuba diver I do not feel that I have led a dull life at all.

Most others also drive and are, therefore, involved.
Those killed at Shoreham were not involved.

Exactly. You have chosen to take risks to have a less dull life. Exactly as I believe spectators should have the right to chose their risk level.

If spectators were allowed to stand along the edge of the runway during displays in the UK over the last decade, how many would have been hurt?
Conversely, how many have been killed skiing, yachting or scuba diving?
We apply totally different standards to aviation for no good statistical reason.

You say "most others" killed by cars also drive.
What about all the kids run down? Pedestrians? Cyclists?
1 million people die on roads every year.
1 aircraft has crashed into a crowd outside an airfield since how many decades?

Cows getting bigger

17th Mar 2016, 11:25

Tourist, a number of the 'crowd' weren't crowd. They were going about their own business, living their lives. Two cyclists on a club ride, a wedding chauffeur....... We (aviation) had absolutely no right to increase the risk of dying on their behalf. We failed them.

Tourist

17th Mar 2016, 11:38

You really are not listening to what I'm saying Cows.

Everything we do affects others.
When we drive a car we add risk to others who have not volunteered for the extra risk like pedestrians.
When I go on holiday and fly over London I am adding to the risk of those below.
When I buy anything at all, the aircraft that flew it in, the truck that drove it to my house. All these things are adding risk to the lives of others.
It is quite simply a part of life.

The actual added risk to drivers passing the airshow was infinitesimally low. Every now and then (once in 6 decades) very low probabilities happen. This is sad but absolutely no reason to ban something.
The whole point of making something a "one in a million" chance is to accept that risk. It will occasionally happen. You should not then say that it is unacceptable. You should turn round and say "well, we always knew it would happen occasionally" and continue. If it happens more often than expected then review. Once in 60 years is absolutely fine to me, and is an absolutely exemplary record.
If we start subjecting everything in life to the requirements already in place upon aviation we end up with the end of all literature, art, fun, civilisation and fun.

We all subconsciously accept that in life in almost everything but for some reason aviation is treated differently.

The Old Fat One

17th Mar 2016, 12:03

I think people are listening to you Tourist and probably agree with some of the points you make, but many I'm sure, like me, find you argument about risk intellectually incoherent (that's a posh way of saying facile).

However, who wants to mount a lengthy philosophical debate about the theory and morals of risk on an internet forum.

So why don't we all just agree to disagree and move on...as none of it has anything to do with what caused the accident and, more significantly, no amount of outrage is going to moderate the fallout from this event. That genie, as we all well know, has already uncorked the bottle, taken flight and is passing through FL240.

Tourist

17th Mar 2016, 12:19

I'm probably not making my point well.

One final try.

Imagine you are the minister for transport, and your bonus has been directly linked to a reduction in accidents deaths. £1 per life saved.

All options across the whole of transport are open to you, but you can only make 10 changes to the law.

Do you go anywhere near aviation?

Personally it would be last on the list.

pasta

17th Mar 2016, 12:25

Accepting the risk or banning the activity are rarely the only options. In most areas, the answer is to control the risk.

To use the driving analogy, we have various rules and speed limits; speed limits are lowered where pedestrians are likely to be around, road layouts adjusted, and so on. This doesn't remove the risk completely, but does reduce it to a level that people find acceptable.

In this instance, it seems reasonable that someone could perform a risk assessment that overlayed the proposed display sequence over the terrain and identified potential areas of higher risk (such as a high-energy manoeuvre performed directly above a major road). Having made that assessment (or studied it if performed by someone else such as the pilot), the FDD is then in a position to assess whether or not the risk is acceptable, and if necessary what can be done to mitigate that risk. The point made by the AAIB is that there appears to be no evidence that such a risk assessment was performed by anyone, in which case no-one would have been in a position to determine whether or not any risks were acceptable, or to consider what steps could be taken to mitigate them.

cessnapete

17th Mar 2016, 12:45

Cows
You still haven't explained from your opinions, how you would put on ANY air show if you wish to ban planes from flying over the general public.
The Hunter was out of control, it's in the description, the fact it impacted a busy road and not adjacent open fields was a random tragic accident/event. Other than clearing whole swathes of population from miles around a venue, how would you plan your air risk free airshow?
Example, technical fault, pilot error say, in displaying A380 at Farnborough. During display it flies over many "innocent' public in surrounding comunities who have no interest in the event.
Presumably you would ban the event??
As Tourist says, life is not risk free, many "innocent" people will continue to die in all sorts of accidents.

Tourist

17th Mar 2016, 12:55

pasta

The problem is merely that what is found acceptable on the road is 1000s of times more dangerous than what is found acceptable in aviation.
If we accept that what is most important is number of people killed or injured then this makes no sense.

Heathrow Harry

17th Mar 2016, 13:56

Pasta's point is

" The point made by the AAIB is that there appears to be no evidence that such a risk assessment was performed by anyone"

Just because display aircraft kill relatively few people doesn't mean that we should pass by on the other side - we should be trying to minimise ALL accidental deaths

Pozidrive

17th Mar 2016, 18:34

Tourist, quoting a couple of your recent comments:

"..people should be allowed to choose their own risk levels"

"..humans are truly awful about risk assessment"

Make your mind up.

Courtney Mil

17th Mar 2016, 18:38

Poz,

In fairness, you've taken two of Tourist's points somewhat out of context. I think his take on this has been pretty clear and consistent.

Pozidrive

17th Mar 2016, 19:13

Poz,

In fairness, you've taken two of Tourist's points somewhat out of context. I think his take on this has been pretty clear and consistent.

..and wrong?

theonewhoknows

17th Mar 2016, 21:19

Interesting!

Lonewolf_50

17th Mar 2016, 21:32

"..people should be allowed to choose their own risk levels"

"..humans are truly awful about risk assessment"

Those two statements do not contradict each other.

Even if I am awful at choosing wines for dinner, I ought to be free to do so (for a mundane example).

Courtney Mil

17th Mar 2016, 22:00

..and wrong?

I did not comment on my opinion of Tourist's argument, but as you ask a direct question, NO. He is perfectly correct in the way he is defining risk in terms of probability and consequence. You may not like or agree with his application of this definition to a particular event, but in making your argument you (and others here) are confusing the definition of a statistical function with feelings generated by an emotive event. For example, it is unfounded to state that people died as a result of a risk, therefore basis of the risk was wrong. The definition of the risk would have predicted that there was a probability of deaths, therefore the basis of the risk was correct.

Tourist is also correct in his generalised assessment of the level of risk associated with flying in general and with flying displays in particular. The hazard may be large, but the risk is small. Conversely, the risk with driving is relatively large. Both are borne out by data.

So, as I said, he has been pretty clear and consistent. In answer to your question, no, he is not wrong in his explanation of risk, nor in the way he has applied the definition to this event. Your argument with his position appears to be far more emotive than factual.

As Lonewolf has illustrated, the other argument is what people see as their ability to assess risk and their willingness to accept the level of risk they perceive. That is a different issue. In considering that, you might start with the fact that for many years, millions of people have barely questioned the risk associated with air shows. Following this event, hundreds are suddenly shouting about unacceptable risk. Perception changes with events, the extant risk does not. The AAIB report is no proof of the level of risk, it is purely a level to facilitate reducing the risk.

Pittsextra

17th Mar 2016, 22:42

What is your view on the event in general?

ExRAFRadar

18th Mar 2016, 07:25

Someone above has pointed out that there was no RA carried out.
How can you minimise risk if you have not assessed it?
Some of the posts on here about the risks of road travel v the risk of airshow watching are a bit disingenuous mainly because of the sheer amount of variables.
I prefer the statistics on train travel.
Your life there is the hands of another human being, bit like an airshow.

The Old Fat One

18th Mar 2016, 07:37

how would you plan your air risk free airshow?

Enough already. Some of the some of the stuff on here is just plain daft. Seriously, is anybody suggesting a "risk free" airshow? Everybody with an IQ north of 20 knows there is no such thing as a "risk free" anything (as Tourist correctly reminds us).

It is equally obvious that society can take objective decisions about the management of risk, the necessity of risk, the mitigation of risk, the assessment etc.

Although I am an ex aviator I am no fan of airshows. Perhaps that has something to do with watching a close friend die in one, along with 6 others, doing something needlessly stupid, and doing it badly. However, and again falling in step with Tourist, I would not see them banned; we live a free country and lots of things we enjoy entail a measure of acceptable risk.

But!

The two recent accidents require a fresh look at the display of vintage jets by part time/amateur/hobbyist/whatever-you-want-to-label them pilots, to ascertain whether or not the risks are being correctly assessed and managed

I'm an ex- Sqn Exec and crew captain, which means, I like many on here, have been formally trained in military flight authorisation...and then spent years applying this training in many environments, including live in combat, which is pretty risky!

But!

Even in combat, risks were assessed and managed. And a MASSIVE part of flight authorisation is checking and qualifying crew currency against a backdrop of statistics and recent training. That's why we call it CURRENCY FFS!!

Whoever is in charge needs to make sure that the pilots currency, on type, in respect of the mission (display flying) needs to be 100% solid, against a backdrop of formal, objective checks.

And if the cost consequences of that curtail such activities, or push up the cost of airshows, then i'm afraid that just comes under the "tough sh1t" caveat.

Thomas coupling

18th Mar 2016, 09:00

Tourist, I choose to disagree with you also for the simple reason:

By all means do what makes you tick to get the kick, but................don't inflict that danger on innocent bystanders is what this is all about.

People who white water raft, base jump, parachute, all understand the risk and apply varying levels of defence to protect them from that risk (dependent on how much they value life, of course). but the back lash of those dangers associated to that activity mustn't be inflicted on the individual who is unaware of those risks.
Road users are de-risked to within an inch of their lives, here in the UK: speed limits, white lines telling them where to position themselves on the road, traffic lights sequencing the traffic, crash barriers, police patrols, cameras, crashworthy cars, seat belts, breathalysers and on and on.
We don't see anything like this in the airshow world other than an imaginary display axis and some hay bales or a picket fence.

1 million people die on roads every year.
1 aircraft has crashed into a crowd outside an airfield since how many decades?
Good comparison - death toll of the entire globe Vs the Shoreham incident....nice one :ugh:

Look - it's all about protecting the innocent, try to think about it from this angle and not from the practitioners perspective, because a dead display pilot who doesn't care if he or she dies doing what they love is a million miles away from a dead passerby who leaves behind a family because he or she popped down the road for a newspaper and got taken out by the debris of a crashed jet which alegedly was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Just because another Shreham didn't happen more frequently doesnt declare airshows safe.

We are supposedly 10 years beyond the statistical fact that the San Andreas fault should have slipped again but does San Fransisco do anything about it.......................ignorance is bliss.:rolleyes:

Cows getting bigger

18th Mar 2016, 09:24

cessnapete, I've never even hinted at banning overflight of all public; your assertion that I have is incorrect.

Trying to get this back on track, I trust we all agree this is about risk assessment. It is my opinion that the risk assessment for Shoreham was flawed (air display overflight of an active road - the A27), for all the reasons previously stated. Tourist is correct in that we cannot remove all risk but we are in the business of managing it. We simply cannot say "accidents happen, move on, nothing to see".

For sure, if we take a standard risk matrix (likelihood vs. consequence) we can assess the likelihood as absolutely nothing thus giving a nice 'green' result. However, we know that air show accidents do happen at a rate higher than other general aviation accidents and therefore there is an increased risk (i.e. above background noise) associated with such accidents. That takes us on to consequences and under any definition multiple deaths would fall into a 'catastrophic' category. Rattling all that down, a basic RA matrix would result in an unacceptable (red) outcome unless a mitigation was put in place. Aside - I'm talking basic safety management principles here but hopefully the message makes sense.

So, we need to find middle ground in how to manage risk. As stated, I'm not an advocate of complete banning of overflight of the public, nor am subscribing to continuance as stands for another 60 years, wholly relying upon the likelihood side of a RA model. I am saying that Shoreham demonstrated a weakness in oversight and risk assessment.

In August 1998 I sat in a Puma helicopter providing ad-hoc medieval after the Ramstein airshow disaster. The industry made significant changes, for the better, after that event. At what point should we wake up and re-assess how we do business - one death, eleven, 40? As a safety manager for a significant AOC organisation, I am absolutely sure that we cannot maintain the status quo.

Tourist

18th Mar 2016, 09:26

Thomas

Car driving is not de-risked at all.

Give yourself 10 seconds and you could come up with 10 ways to save hundreds of thousands of lives each year.

Off the top of my head.
1. 5 point harnesses for all road users. (can't believe it's not done.!)
2. Helmets for everybody in cars. (pain in the bum but hardly too onerous)
3. All cars maximum speed limit 50mph (Not really a big deal)
3. Max limit in town 20mph (moving that way)
4. All cars coated in 6 inches of foam padding. (even banning bull-bars would help)
5. Mandatory annual driving test. (old buggers have never had to take one!)
6. Breathalysers integrated into ignition system. (Obvious)
7. Annual Medicals (expensive but effective)
8. Ban all sports cars (obvious)
9. Ban motorbikes (more obvious!)
10.Mandatory cargo nets for all transported goods in cars.( I have bad memories from a SAR shout to an RTA with kids and a portable amp in the back:uhoh:)

None of these are in any way technically difficult, yet would have greater or lesser effects on the experience of driving. We choose not to do these things because we have decided that the risk is reasonable without them.

Contrast that with aviation.

You say that my example contrasts the whole world against Shoreham, but that is not the case.
How many air-shows in the last 50 years had an aircraft crash outside the airfield that killed passing motorists?

Where is the hand wringing when a bus crashes and kills 20? Where is the sudden change in rules and regulations governing all road users?

Tourist

18th Mar 2016, 09:42

A question for everybody.

Is there a number you have in mind for an acceptable number of deaths caused by Airshows and aviation in general?

The reason I ask is that we really need a target.
If the answer is zero, then the solution is apparent.
If not, then the process cannot work without accepting that a number of accidents will happen.
Once you set a number, you are implicitly saying that you accept that accidents are an unavoidable consequence of aviating.
To hand-wring after each accident and attempt to make it impossible to happen again is moving goal posts that we set ourselves. The end point of this is obviously the end of flying.

If you had said to one of our predecessors in 1960 whether he would be happy with a death rate 10 times less than they then experienced with very minimal changes, then he would be ecstatic and sign up immediately.

Well we are well beyond that point. We have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. We are now suffering such low accident rates that they are too low for statistical analysis. One accident skews the graph for a year so far it gives no useful inferences.

We are also a long way past the easy fixes that have negligible effect on aviation and airshows.
Everything we now do is closer to the point where there is no airshow anymore. People want a spectacle. They want noise and speed and excitement.
Yes they want the Shuttleworth etc too, but that is a very different audience.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that as long as it is safer to be at the airshow than when you are driving to it, then it is safe enough.

The Old Fat One

18th Mar 2016, 09:58

Tourist

Totally agree with you re driving and I would like to see many of things on your list implemented. If fact, quite a few of them are in place in other countries.

But this is not a road traffic forum and no amount of laboring your argument is going to dissuade those who see it as a profoundly poor way of making a point. More and more it just looks like obfuscation....as does the latest gambit - lets set an airshow death target. LOL.

Let it go man. Aviation is held to higher safety standards than other modes of travel, it was ever thus. Big deal. Who cares?

Move on.

Alber Ratman

18th Mar 2016, 10:14

The Old Fat One has hit the nail on the head. Best argument I have seen recently on this thread.

Easy Street

18th Mar 2016, 10:39

The concepts which cover the ground being argued over are societal risk and scale aversion, which basically deal with the idea that over a given period we are much more comfortable with 100 deaths in 100 separate incidents than we are with 100 deaths in one incident, irrespective of first/second/third-party status. The HSE published a summary of sociological research here (http://www.hse.gov.uk/societalrisk/evidence-or-otherwise-of-scale-aversion.pdf) and concluded that "it is neither practical nor sensible to attempt to measure [scale aversion] in mathematical terms". This is why the eminently sensible road safety measures advocated by Tourist have not been seriously considered.

It is not just aviation that labours under the burden of societal risk - our railways are over-engineered and under-utilised as a consequence of it, and nuclear power likewise...

Cows getting bigger

18th Mar 2016, 11:08

We are now suffering such low accident rates that they are too low for statistical analysis. One accident skews the graph for a year so far it gives no useful inferences.

Noooooooo. You don't get statistical skews. You get peaks and troughs but over time there are still trends and facts. If the lack of numbers limit the ability to make a quantitive assessment you can then make qualitative assessments (i.e. based upon experience). The argument is not wholly about numbers of deaths, it is about rate of deaths or, to be more precise, the risk of occurrences which may lead to deaths. Put another way, if for argument's sake we'll accept one death per airshow or one Shoreham a year, how may airshows are we going to have at that rate before we take a look at what is happening?

Lonewolf_50

18th Mar 2016, 11:42

@Old Fat One: The currency/recency issue came up in our discussion about AF 447 and hand flying at altitude. Based on the few displays I every did (nothing as exotic as flying a vintage jet) the amount of practice, pre briefing, and currency was not trivial.

This is where pilots have to be honest with themselves. As with one's golf game, it is best to get current/practice a bit before a money match.

Tourist

18th Mar 2016, 11:48

Cows

You can't have it both ways. If you accept one death per airshow or one Shoreham per year, then you accept it. If you decide that something needs to be done then you have just accepted mission creep.

That doesn't mean you can't look at the incidents to see if something small could make it even safer without losing anything, but at this point there are no easy fixes. All the easy yards went decades ago.
We are well along the road of diminishing returns into the part of the graph where huge efforts produce negligible gains in safety.

If you feel the need to make aviation safer after every incident, then you might as well just cut out e intervening stages and ban flying because that is the logical conclusion of requiring ever increasing amounts of safety.

skridlov

18th Mar 2016, 11:51

I live in Shoreham, drive the A27 regularly, love the airshow and would hate to see it terminated or emasculated. It would seem to me to be an adequate response to this tragedy if the administration and planning of the show be tightened up in appropriate ways - which I'm not qualified to assess.
I was also present and witnessed the Hurricane crash in 2007. Without trawling though interminable posts I think it's worth noting - if it hasn't already been noted - that the Hurricane crash occurred barely a few hundred yards from the site of the Hunter accident and very close (on the hillside to the north) to the A27. It was, as far as I recollect, at least partially a consequence of an unplanned manoeuvre. I wonder if the Hurricane accident had any influence on the subsequent planning?

PDR1

18th Mar 2016, 12:20

There is a HSE document on the acceptability of risks of various kinds in various scenarios called "Reducing Risks and Protecting People" [generally refered to as "R2P2" in the engineering profession] which is widely respected as a practicable approach to this question. It's actually worth a read, because it talks a lot more sense than most people's prejudices would expect!

PDR

Courtney Mil

18th Mar 2016, 12:52

it is about rate of deaths or, to be more precise, the risk of occurrences which may lead to deaths

You're still confusing risk, likelihood and consequence.

The number of deaths in an event is the consequence (or cost or impact). If preventing deaths associated is your aim, "the risk of occurrences which may lead to deaths" is meaningless. You would use the likelihood of occurrences which lead to deaths.

Your question about how many air shows: straight forward risk won't tell you that because of random distribution and probability. If you're using positional risk, then you might be tempted to argue that doubling the number of air shows doubles the likelihood of a crash, but that is not the case, because frequency also affects other factors that affect likelihood.

Of course, the level of risk that is acceptable is an entirely different matter and has to decided separately from a dispassionate assessment of risk. Again, level of risk and acceptability are being confused here. As far as I can see, the only means of achieving zero risk of death caused (directly or indirectly) by air displays is to have zero air diaplays. If the argument is about what level of risk is acceptable, then everyone here is fully entitled to their opinion of that, but those opinions do not alter the actual level of risk. Likewise, the effectiveness of any risk assessment conducted for a particular event does not change the level of risk, simply the accuracy of the understanding of that risk and the value of any decisions based on the risk.

That takes us on to consequences and under any definition multiple deaths would fall into a 'catastrophic' category. Rattling all that down, a basic RA matrix would result in an unacceptable (red) outcom

No, it doesn't. The risk doesn't become "unacceptable" just because of the severity of the outcome as you said yourself. If the probability of the event happening is small enough, a catastrophic outcome can still produce either a medium or even low risk. If you simply use the outcome as your measure of acceptability, we would have no airliners, high speed trains or nuclear power stations.

You, and others here, will only make proper sense of this when you stop confusing the terms risk, probability and consequence. Once you apply those terms correctly and consistently, you can assess the level of risk appropriately and tackle BOTH the factors in risk reduction. Reduce likely hood: training, assessment, currency, engineering standards, frequency, etc. Reduce impact: Separation from people and property, crash response, energy at impact, fire suppression, etc.

Pontius Navigator

18th Mar 2016, 13:39

CGB However, we know that air show accidents do happen at a rate higher than other general aviation accidents

Do we?

I can think of a fair number of GA accidents in the last year and more notable than the number of air show accidents. Many (most) have been as a result of flight in marginal conditions. Fortuitously most of the fatal casualties have been limited to those on board.

Quite a list here: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports even if some are simple runway excursions or collisions it is rather more than the air show accidents.

Damn, statistics always get in the way of a bald statement.

Pittsextra

18th Mar 2016, 20:19

Do we? We do. You just need to read page 15 of the AAIB special bulletin to give an actual number and the metrics used.

But we miss the point. In the end risk and its management have all be defined by the regulator. The principle document that related to air display was CAP 403, it is mature, being as it was in its 13th version. We can all read so there is no need to restate the points made in the same AAIB SB as referenced above.

We can argue it differently and/or believe that the 13th edition of CAP403 was not as we would like it but that is beside the point after the event.

What we might take away from the emerging accepted facts - if we can agree that the AAIB reports establish them - is that the narrative hasn't revealed a "magic bullet" that explains all with some 1 in a million engineering failure. So far it has followed that tired old path (which for want of a better term) has complacency and human error front and centre.

We will never know how and if this event could have been captured earlier because those who are closest to this - including the CAA - kept no data. Hence why the 2014 JP incident is of focus purely because it is within memory - but who knows what is or who else was doing what earlier?

Regardless what this thread increasingly demonstrates is there are those who fail to engage and speak up because...well who knows? Some loyalty to kindred spirits, old pals, whatever you choose to class them as or even define "them" as.

The "wait for the final report", the "disgusted" at those who hold opinion, the trolling, the having a chip and the "who are you and what do you fly" calls start to lack credibility and become themselves rediculous when so much of what was said earlier proves not to be wild speculation but accurate - and not because of any special genius but very often by being able to see what is hidden in plain sight.

Courtney Mil

18th Mar 2016, 20:50

the narrative hasn't revealed a "magic bullet" that explains all with some 1 in a million engineering failure.

That would be because they haven't reported on the accident inquiry yet. All you've seen are special bulletins on issues that have emerged from their investigation that they feel would have an effect on flight safety.

A lot of what you say is well founded, but you're becoming a bit irate in your ranting. No one has ever said that your speculated conclusions won't end up being proved correct, just that you don't know yet. I'm longing to see your rant if the final report accords with your speculations. We'll be selling ring side seats for that one.

Until then...

that tired old path
complacency and human error front and centre
who knows what is or who else was doing what earlier?
loyalty to kindred spirits, old pals, whatever you choose
wait for the final report
disgusted
the trolling
having a chip
who are you and what do you fly
not to be wild speculation but accurate
hidden in plain sight

Again, no one has ever told you that your speculations drew incorrect conclusions - check back. But are still wrong to express them in public when you can't prove them. Not when you are effectively accusing someone of terrible things. Not professional.

Pittsextra

18th Mar 2016, 21:02

I'm not irate and its not ranting. Its conversation via the internet on a forum with the word rumour in its title. You might be unsurprised therefore when some people post rumour - i.e. you hear from someone, which maybe well placed, to give a view on events.

Beyond that element I think you overlook the fact that people can not only see a great amount of this accident for themselves, others did, both live and via recorded media, so very much is hardly speculated conclusion. The 1/4 clover nonsense a case in point. The all at sea CAA another, the execution of the figure another...

Nothing to do with me, being right - the bigger picture is a lot of people dead and an industry with peoples earnings potential along with so many peoples enjoyment threatened and all because why?? How do the see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing club help them??

Nice edit - fyi accusing someone of terrible things - how?? where?

Courtney Mil

18th Mar 2016, 21:07

Those would be the people that have seen the same as you, but are sensible enough only to discuss the know facts, not trying to start your "rumours".

EDIT: Mods, large amount of text missing from this and other posts. Is there a problem?

Pittsextra

18th Mar 2016, 21:43

OK so what exactly is the criticism? That the view is accurate but you don't like that view aired until a time you or someone else deems that it is fit to air that view?

How does that work?

Would you take that view if you were talking about historical child sex abuse? You just just hold no opinion? Could you possibly foresee that in that instance you'd develop a culture where nobody would ever speak up?

You said :

A lot of what you say is well founded So why does it then become unprofessional?

Much of what I've posted about this accident has had nothing to do with the pilot. Yes I suggested he was low, I suggested that the figure was a 1/4 clover and later that it looked scruffy - to mean that as one could see, it wouldn't be as one would fly it for aeros in a piston plane (which btw is the category of aircraft the pilot in question is well practiced in, although as we know there has been good colour on a pilot with experience on this type of aircraft - which in itself provides potential explanation in itself). But we can't debate any of that because you don't see that it is relevant yet.

But then the criticism has been to the CAA - does APG63 still believe they avoid criticism? - for a variety of reasons where I questioned resource and communication and that of the AAIB - its publication of the SB is cynically timed vis the ending of the CAA fees consultation and what part of this latest SB's content required 7 months to research? 7 months, even at a 1950's 40hour week is over 1200hrs of work per person - that is a lot of time.

I mean does the AAIB have 1 person per case? 1 person for 10 cases. 100?? I don't know, but I do know in the interim period the AAIB and CAA have being hiring...

Yet its all set against a backdrop where the CAA's P&L for 2014 was +£14m post tax and £5.5m in 2015. Yet now the CAA are scrabbling for £250k for 4 guys to stick fingers in the leaking dam?!

So yeah I think a great deal was as plain as the nose on your face.

Courtney Mil

18th Mar 2016, 21:48

Pitts,

Everything you have just asked me, I have already told you and, once again, you are reading what you want to see. I did not say your view was accurate. I said nothing about when someone deems anything.

Read what I have written not what you want to rant about. As you well know, or should if you read carefully, I have never discussed any other aspects of the reports such as the actions and performance of the CAA; that is because it is an area that I am neither particularly familiar with nor interested in. I have expressed no opinion on the accident itself because I am sensible enough not to make defamatory statements about a pilot involved in a high profile case until factors other than pilot error are ruled out. The evidence for that will not be available until the final report is published. Until then I do not feel the need to go shooting my mouth off with any unfounded conclusions.

I have a very firm opinion of what happened. But it is not confirmed nor is it disproved due to lacking evidence and I shall not be discussing it until that evidence becomes available to me. Your desire to jump to conclusions would not be a very professional attitude for a pilot.

I cannot answer for other members, you will have to ask them.

Pittsextra

18th Mar 2016, 22:18

I did not say your view was accurate.when before you said

A lot of what you say is well founded Accurate / A lot of what you say is well founded... Isn't that the same thing?

If not then that is my poor understanding / usage of the English language.

I have never discussed any other aspects of the reports such as the actions and performance of the CAA; that is because it is an area that I am neither particularly familiar with nor interested in. Other than being interested in comments made by the CAA as reflected by me in a post which you tried to call me out over...

I have expressed no opinion on the accident itself because I am sensible enough not to make defamatory statements about a pilot involved in a high profile case until factors other than pilot error are ruled out. I have a very firm opinion of what happened. But it is not confirmed not disproved due to lacking evidence and I shall not be discussing it until that evidence becomes available to me. Your desire to jump to conclusions would not be a very professional attitude for a pilot. There is a mixture of things here. So you can have a "very firm opinion of what happened" and yet my opinions are classed as "a desire to jump to conclusions". So what evidence do you have that allows your strong opinion to be formed - because you've formed it regardless of its communication.

So now its the voicing of an opinion that is an issue, but of course that might not apply to people you see as your peers in a bar perhaps and so its now just here, which you seem to caveat as defamatory... although you'd have to clarify which bits they are and then take a view on fair comment.

Courtney Mil

19th Mar 2016, 12:34

It's OK, PN, we've discussed it off line - at Pitts' instigation, I might add. Distracting discussion over.

aox

22nd Mar 2016, 18:53

Local TV news reports that the Police are applying to the High Court to obtain evidence from the AAIB investigation.

Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35873276)

Courtney Mil

22nd Mar 2016, 21:01

And there is legal precedent for using AAIB evidence for prosecutions. All well and good, it is expert evidence, after all. But from a flight safety perspective it will mean that witnesses will be far more guarded about being open and honest if they think their words could be quoted in court when they were least expecting it.

I suppose it all depends whether you want to make flying safer by improvement or threat of prosecution.

MACH2NUMBER

22nd Mar 2016, 21:40

CM,
I seem to recall, many years ago, the RAF tried to apply "Flight Safety by Crucifiction". I can't remember this being particularly helpful or in any way successful.
M2N

Courtney Mil

22nd Mar 2016, 21:47

Indeed not, M2N.

Martin the Martian

23rd Mar 2016, 14:41

Am I missing something, or would the police be just as well as to wait until the AAIB has published its report, at which time it will all be in the open anyway?

Trim Stab

23rd Mar 2016, 15:04

Am I missing something, or would the police be just as well as to wait until the AAIB has published its report, at which time it will all be in the open anyway?

The AAIB does not make publicly available all the data and evidence that they hold. For example, they don't release the audio tapes from the CVR, nor do they publish all the photos from the crash site, as such data would breach personal privacy laws if published. However, such data could form an important part of a police investigation, hence the police have to apply to the courts to have it released to them by the AAIB.

Wander00

23rd Mar 2016, 16:21

Presumably they want witness statements so CPS can decide on whether to prosecute, and who

Courtney Mil

23rd Mar 2016, 18:40

I'm not sure that witness statements given to the AAIB would be admissible without some kind of verification because they are not given under oath/caution, which is important if someone is being terrible honest and might incriminate themselves or others, so maybe not in accordance with PACE. Although that would lead to an interesting set of questions in court.

The report might be used to identify expert witnesses or others that the Police may wish to interview. The forensic evidence is obviously useful and the I'm aware I have not phrased that correctly so, hopefully, Flying Lawyer can correct me.

NutLoose

23rd Mar 2016, 21:51

Hmm, my concerns are that future incidents you will not get full disclosure for worry of prosecution and that can then lead to more fatalities as the root cause may not be discovered.

One also questions the polices expertise in all of this, surely it is the role of the AAIB to take the evidence and then use their knowledge and expertise to sort out the relevant information from the chafe to arrive at the correct conclusion.

The police in requesting the information will be presented with it all without the skill set to differentiate from what is relevant to the case and what is not and the people they would then have to approach to accurately disseminate the relevant evidence would be the errrrrrr AAIB.

Genghis the Engineer

23rd Mar 2016, 22:11

Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | Admissibility of Air Accident Reports in Court Proceedings (http://www.aerosociety.com/Events/Event-List/1999/Admissibility-of-Air-Accident-Reports-in-Court-Proceedings)

Across the globe, aircraft accidents and serious incidents are invariably followed by a State sponsored ICAO Annex 13 investigation, the stated purpose of which is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. Annex 13 stipulates that it is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability. Nevertheless, in some jurisdictions any resultant air accident report can be admitted in court proceedings concerning issues of blame or liability. Does this matter? And if so why?

This seminar will consider the implications, if any, of the potential admissibility of any Annex 13 air accident report, drawing upon the experience of the diverse law and practice in various jurisdictions. It will do so via two distinguished panels of speakers: one approaching the topic from the perspective of lawyers; and one doing so from the wider perspective of various relevant stakeholders. Time will be provided for panel discussion and debate.

Sadly I didn't attend that, as it looked fascinating, but the proceedings must be available somewhere.

G

Courtney Mil

23rd Mar 2016, 23:59

Sad when a (relatively) open flight safety reporting system is overtaken by the litigious world. They will pay the price, one way or another.

Thoughts with Bruxelles.

effortless

24th Mar 2016, 10:01

The comparison has been made between road traffic accidents and the shoreham incident. The point has been made that the casualties were not participants. I would point out that the emphasis in road transport has been to make the process safer. Cars are very much less lethal. I contend, as latterly did Ralph Nader, that the safer the cars, the greater the number of pedestrian casualties. So, I guess that the attrition rate for non participants in road transport is not a good example for the argument against air shows. I'm sorry if this a non sequitur but the toing and froing in this thread is mind numbing.

All I know is that I was near a group of very experienced pilots who seemed to suck in their breath as the hunter reached the top of his manoeuvre. I have no FJ experience to speak of.

Pontius Navigator

24th Mar 2016, 16:04

Actually I would contend nothing has changed. The only way the AAIB report and inadmissible witness statements could be hidden from the judiciary would be to ensure they remained confidential and never released. As they are always released nothing has changed.

Edit to add:

@CM

[QUOTE
The downside is the willingness, or lack of, of witnesses to (potentially) incriminate themselves, their company or colleagues in the pursuit of the furtherance of fight safety.[/QUOTE]

But still no difference. The potential for self incrimination has always been there, and also been a factor in Service BoI or investigation when the witness/selected guilty party has said no comment until my solicitor is present.

Genghis the Engineer

24th Mar 2016, 17:19

I think that you're right Pontious.

I'm not professionally involved in the Shoreham aftermath, but have acted as an expert witness in many other UK crash related cases. I have always used AAIB reports as evidence, but have always been expected to provide my own analysis to the court, answering the questions that matter - which are different questions to the "how to avoid a recurrence" questions answered by AAIB. I've seen and heard nothing likely to change that.

G

Courtney Mil

24th Mar 2016, 17:41

PN, you are spot on about that.

I think the benefits are that the results of an intensive and thorough investigation can point the Police/CPS/Prosecutors/individuals in the right direction to find admissible evidence of their own and a source of "expert witnesses", assuming they are willing to testify - of course, their analysis is already out there as you imply.

The downside is the willingness, or lack of, of witnesses to (potentially) incriminate themselves, their company or colleagues in the pursuit of the furtherance of fight safety.

Come to think of it, wasn't the precedent that was set last year to use the reports as evidence? Flying Lawyer, where are you?

EAP86

24th Mar 2016, 22:41

The issue is that the AAIB is aiming to prevent a recurrence; the police are only looking for a prosecution. We forget this at our peril.

EAP

Trim Stab

25th Mar 2016, 08:47

The issue is that the AAIB is aiming to prevent a recurrence; the police are only looking for a prosecution. We forget this at our peril.

Police prosecutions also prevent recurrences.

Flying Lawyer

2nd Apr 2016, 10:50

Genghis Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | Admissibility of Air Accident Reports in Court Proceedings (http://www.aerosociety.com/Events/Event-List/1999/Admissibility-of-Air-Accident-Reports-in-Court-Proceedings)

Sadly I didn't attend that, as it looked fascinating, but the proceedings must be available somewhere.

It was a very interesting, and well attended, seminar.
No vote was taken but my impression, based upon audience response to the various invited speakers and contributions to the debate from the floor, was that the large majority considered that the use of AAIB reports in court proceedings would do nothing to enhance aviation safety and has the potential to erode it.
NB: The issue relates to the use of the AAIB report itself (the document) as evidence - not to witnesses (expert or other) giving evidence in court.

============

Courtney Mil
Come to think of it, wasn't the precedent that was set last year to use the reports as evidence? Flying Lawyer, where are you?
Yes, there was a significant change (in 2014) relating to the use of AAIB reports in civil proceedings.

Criminal proceedings
No change.
Extracts from AAIB reports setting out non-contentious factual findings are sometimes used in evidence provided that prosecution and defence agree.
Most prosecutors don't even try to adduce entire AAIB reports in evidence to the jury.

Objections include:

AAIB reports are hearsay, not direct evidence.
They are anonymized documents - not all the authors are named. They contain accounts given by un-named witnesses whose accuracy, objectivity and honesty has not been tested.
Opinions are expressed by un-named individuals whose expertise (or lack of) is not known.
Findings are reached on the basis of evaluation and elimination of evidence, but the process by which evidence was relied upon/eliminated by the AAIB is not disclosed.
The evidence discarded during that process is not disclosed.
The risk that juries will attach too much weight to the opinions of unknown AAIB inspectors simply because they are AAIB inspectors. They are generally very good but, in common with the rest of us, they are not infallible.
'Public Interest' objections: See below.

Civil proceedings

Historically, extracts from AAIB reports dealing with non-contentious findings have been used in evidence by agreement between the parties.

In 2014, the UK Court of Appeal concluded that AAIB reports (the entire document) are admissible in evidence in civil proceedings even where one or more parties objects – subject only to judges' discretion to exclude in exceptional circumstances. NB: The report is admissible as evidence - even though the people who created/contributed to it are not called as witnesses and, accordingly, not cross-examined about their findings/conclusions.

In very brief summary, the Court of Appeal rejected the objections set out in the section above in so far as they relate to civil proceedings tried by a judge (no jury). NB: The decision does not affect criminal proceedings (prosecutions).

Public Interest: Flight Safety
Given the importance of the issue being considered, the Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State for Transport and IATA to make representations. The Secretary of State submitted a statement from the Chief Inspector of the AAIB.

The Chief Inspector expressed a number of fears which, in summary, were that if reports were frequently used in Court proceedings, people who may assist the AAIB might be deterred from doing so; people may fear being called as witnesses or fear being sued; they might be encouraged to speak with their employer before speaking to the AAIB, who would in turn refer to their lawyers, slowing down the investigation; the quality of volunteered information may decline, or dry up completely; AAIB investigators may face additional pressures if they fear having to justify their conclusions in Court.

The Court of Appeal rejected those objections, concluding that people are well aware of the vital role of the AAIB and were unlikely to be significantly deterred from co-operating if reports were allowed to be used in civil proceedings.

Only time will tell if the Court's confidence was well-founded.
Although it is well known that the AAIB's role is not to apportion blame, parties and their advisers inevitably consider liability implications when assisting the AAIB. Most people/corporations are understandably reluctant to incriminate themselves/provide information which might lead to their being sued and, in the case of individuals, potentially being ruined financially as well as professionally. Lawyers are obliged to advise/warn their clients about the potential risks and, in particular, about the effect of the 2014 development. Failure to do so would be incompetent at least and arguably amount to negligence.

Widely held informed opinion is that the 2014 decision will increase such concerns and may well, entirely understandably, diminish people's desire to help - with a consequent adverse effect upon the AAIB’s ability to do its valuable job.

The 2014 decision was not further appealed so will remain the law unless/until it is reversed by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in some future case – or changed by Parliament.
Interestingly, there is a statutory restriction upon the admission of reports produced by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch (MAIB). I haven't researched the point but wonder whether the difference was oversight rather than intentional.