Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

Old 14th Sep 2015, 08:06
  #761 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 56
Posts: 6,890
BEagle, certainly something was released as I recall reading it, or at least a summary.
treadigraph is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 08:53
  #762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 44
I think you will find that the Firefly investigation was carried out by the RN, not AAIB and was therefore probably Restricted.
Most reports start off as restricted, but are subsequently released outside the MoD.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 08:59
  #763 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 44
I haven't made any comment on entry or gate heights - not something I am qualified to comment on, but I do think Trim Stab's question was a reasonable one. The follow up to this accident is going to be about so much more than just the crash itself.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 09:18
  #764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
My further apologies for inadvertently opening another diversion from the thread. I wasn't referring to the vintage Firefly.

I was taking about the little yellow trainer just to make the point that entry height is somewhat unimportant.
Tourist is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 10:33
  #765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Penryn, Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 49
Elephant warning

Well, someone, despite CM's attempt to stifle it, has started discussing the elephant in the room ...
Of course, if it is shown to be a technical issue, or pilot error during the manoeuvre, then there would be no prosecution.
Why ever not? Forgetting the issues about entry level etc, which are probably irrelevant (sorry!), are there no judicial consequences arising from the planning, approval or conduct of a manoeuvre in which a fast jet bottoms out, in a high energy state, 200ft above a busy main road, where a small mistake or technical issue could have the sort of consequences we saw at Shoreham?

People have been making comparisons here with the risks involved in just being on the roads, with the implication that the deaths of 11 bystanders should somehow be accepted, and everyone just carry on as normal. Well, if I make an error driving, take a corner faster than icy conditions allow, and wipe out a bus queue, I am pretty sure I can expect to be prosecuted, and rightly so. Should not the same principle apply to any activity which puts the general public at risk?
idle bystander is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 10:44
  #766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 44
IB, well said, and yes to both of your questions.

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

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

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

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 10:45
  #767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,739
just to make the point that entry height is somewhat unimportant.
It is unimportant (for powered aircraft) as long as nothing goes wrong in the manoeuvre. Clearly something went wrong in this particular manoeuvre. We don't know whether it was pilot error, or temporary pilot incapacitation, or a technical problem, or something else. Whatever the case, if he had started the manoeuvre even a few dozen feet higher, the incident would not have happened.

I suspect that the exact wording of the display authorisation and the aircraft parameters at the start of the manouevre are going to get looked at in some detail.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 10:50
  #768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,701
I get the impression that some of the more recent contributors must have been tricoteuses in a former life.....

Thanks for the gen. regarding the Firefly accident, moggie.
BEagle is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 10:52
  #769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,516
I get the impression they know very little about the law in the UK...either in theory or practice.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 11:48
  #770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,739
I get the impression they know very little about the law in the UK...either in theory or practice.
Would you care to elaborate if you consider yourself a legal expert? Is display flying exempt from normal legal process? Is there some sort of liability waiver given to display pilots? I don't know - it is a genuine question.

However, I do know that if I kill somebody through a reckless or irresponsible act then I can expect charges of involuntary manslaughter and, if prosecuted, a moderately heavy jail sentence. The AAIB preliminary report states that he commenced the display at 200' rather than 500' which was authorised. Already, that doesn't look too good. There may well be wording in the display authorisation that permitted this under certain circumstances which may emerge later - I hope so for his sake. However, if there are no mitigations then I can't see the police or CPS letting this go lightly, given the severity of the consequences. I would also expect the various insurance companies that are involved will also be taking a close interest.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 12:50
  #771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Penryn, Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 49
Madame Guillotine

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

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

Last edited by idle bystander; 14th Sep 2015 at 12:51. Reason: grammar
idle bystander is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 13:19
  #772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1
Trim Stab: as far as I can see, not everyone here would agree that the final manoeuvre begins at the 200 ft point, nor does the AAIB report 'state' that.

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

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

Surely it must be possible and allowed for display pilots to dip down to 100 ft or 200 ft *in between* manoeuvres.
1Magnus is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:08
  #773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
I realise that some people on here probably know the pilot so are emotionally involved. I am sorry if my question is offensive to you.
I don't know the pilot at all. I am not in the least "emotionally involved" regarding the pilot or the victims on the ground. Yet I find public speculation about legal prosecution of the pilot based on the flimsiest of data and essentially zero understanding of display flying patently offensive.
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:20
  #774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 44
I think we are all familiar with the attitudes in the US to aircrews being held to account for their actions Ken. I won't list the examples.

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

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:25
  #775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Well one thing is for certain
The unfortunate pilot and his family would be well advised to contact a firm of solicitors who are experts in this particular field of the law and in the meantime to say absolutely nothing whatsoever to anyone regardless of whom they are.
dsc810 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:31
  #776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,744
QUOTE Yet I find public speculation about legal prosecution of the pilot based on the flimsiest of data and essentially zero understanding of display flying patently offensive.

The matter is nothing to do with understanding flying at all.
I believe the basic premise is that if a person, for any reason, is involved in the cause of death of another there is bound to be enquiry. The possible outcomes certainly include involuntary manslaughter.
It happens frequently on the roads: drivers make misjudgements or drive unroadworthy vehicles, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or when tired.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:36
  #777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
KenV, I agree.

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

Perhaps it's for the best that we let the experts do their job? They will have the answers.
JointShiteFighter is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 16:41
  #778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
OK Trim Stab, let me be clear. First,

Originally Posted by trim stab
I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft
I see no reason why he shouldn't. I'm not sure why you would regard the entry height as an allegation since you posted earlier,

Originally Posted by trim stab
The AAIB preliminary report states that he commenced the display at 200'
Second,

Originally Posted by trim stab
instead of 500ft authorised for the display.
And

Originally Posted by trim stab
rather than 500' which was authorised.
Neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what is in Andy's display authorisation. If you don't understand what a display authorisation is or where minimum heights are stipulated read CAP 403 before repeating such "allegations" in public. You should already be conversant with the Air Navigation Order given your CPL. Perhaps you might consider if the allegations were made by anyone that has seen Andy's DA; I doubt its contents will reach the public domain until much later in the investigation.

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

Third,

Originally Posted by trim stab
If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?
I am astonished either that you cannot understand how inappropriate that question is in public or that you simply choose to ignore that it is. Anyone here with half a brain can work out the answer to your question, but most seem to be capable of keeping such bad taste musings to themselves. As you probably already know the answer, I have to wonder what would motivate you to invite yet further speculation on that.

The title of this forum may include the word 'rumour', but it starts with the word 'professional'. Behave as such and show some respect rather than feeding your idle curiosity about whether a well-respected professional pilot is going to be prosecuted.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 17:52
  #779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Still on the beach (but this one's cold).
Posts: 144
Agree with absolutely every thing Courtney Mil said above. The entry height is irrelevant to the mvr flown and those quoting it as a potential factor in the accident merely highlight their lack of knowledge and understanding of low level display flying.
Mach the Knife is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 17:59
  #780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 466
Yep, discussion is pretty much irrelevant as the vast majority don't fly Air Displays and whatever is said you can't uncrash the jet.

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

I just feel very sorry for all concerned, especially the bereaved and those marred and scarred.
Brian W May is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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