Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

[Tourist]

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

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

Even a Firefly had enough power to climb during aeros.

[BEagle]

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

There's nothing in the AAIB archives.

[Trim Stab]

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

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

[Mogwi]

BE,

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

[treadigraph]

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

[salad-dodger]

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

Most reports start off as restricted, but are subsequently released outside the MoD.

S-D

[salad-dodger]

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

S-D

[Tourist]

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

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

[idle bystander]

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?

[salad-dodger]

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

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

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

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

S-D

[Trim Stab]

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

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

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

[BEagle]

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

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

[The Old Fat One]

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

[Trim Stab]

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

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

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

[idle bystander]

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 ...

[1Magnus]

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

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

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

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

[KenV]

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

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

[salad-dodger]

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

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

S-D

[dsc810]

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

[langleybaston]

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

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