Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Tourist,
My last comment was made somewhat tongue in cheek so apologies if it came across otherwise.
One important aspect to take into account with respect to flying over roads, houses etc is that it is actually the flightpath vector of the aircraft that is important. If an aircraft in level flight and with forward speed is going to crash, the point of impact will most certainly not be directly underneath it, irrespective of its height. Therefore, if an aircraft overflies a congested area with a level or shallow flightpath angle, the probability of hitting that area is low. However, steep flightpath angles, such as those that occur during a loop, do present a significant risk of impact with what is directly underneath the aircraft if the manoeuvre deviates excessively from the norm.
The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers. These considerations are what often dictate the restrictions imposed at air displays. Therefore, whilst the biggest risk of an aircraft crashing on a road may be the approach case, low and fast overflight of traffic may well be a greater cause of road traffic accidents. I accept that this discussion mostly is not relevant to Shoreham but since we have been discussing safety issues related to the overflight of roads I thought that it was worth raising.
My last comment was made somewhat tongue in cheek so apologies if it came across otherwise.
One important aspect to take into account with respect to flying over roads, houses etc is that it is actually the flightpath vector of the aircraft that is important. If an aircraft in level flight and with forward speed is going to crash, the point of impact will most certainly not be directly underneath it, irrespective of its height. Therefore, if an aircraft overflies a congested area with a level or shallow flightpath angle, the probability of hitting that area is low. However, steep flightpath angles, such as those that occur during a loop, do present a significant risk of impact with what is directly underneath the aircraft if the manoeuvre deviates excessively from the norm.
The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers. These considerations are what often dictate the restrictions imposed at air displays. Therefore, whilst the biggest risk of an aircraft crashing on a road may be the approach case, low and fast overflight of traffic may well be a greater cause of road traffic accidents. I accept that this discussion mostly is not relevant to Shoreham but since we have been discussing safety issues related to the overflight of roads I thought that it was worth raising.
Lomcovák wrote:
Indeed. Whereas 20 years ago the sight and sound of low flying military aircraft was commonplace to many motorists, nowadays it's a rarity.
Back in Summer 1991, I was driving home south on the M6 one Sunday morning when there was a sudden loud noise overhead - it was the BWoS de Havilland Mosquito on its way to an air show. What a wonderful sight/sound - but rather a silly idea to fly at low level near a major motorway, surely? Thankfully it was very quiet at the time...
The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers.
Back in Summer 1991, I was driving home south on the M6 one Sunday morning when there was a sudden loud noise overhead - it was the BWoS de Havilland Mosquito on its way to an air show. What a wonderful sight/sound - but rather a silly idea to fly at low level near a major motorway, surely? Thankfully it was very quiet at the time...
Tourist, CM:
I think (hope) that we are at cross purposes. You seem to think that I think that the initial manoeuvre, as he arrived, was unsafe. I am not referring to that part of the display at all. Indeed, I can see that an arrival like that, leading into a pull up and ¼ clover (whatever, there seems to have been argument about terminology, and I'm not competent to enter that discussion) is nicely dramatic but safe and shows off the aircraft in just the way the public want. Crossing the A27 at this point is not especially dangerous - I think there are road signs warning drivers of low flying aircraft.
My comment was addressing the rest of the manoeuvre. From the moment the roll started on the upward leg he is is changing the axis of the display with the inevitable result that the highest energy part of the manoeuvre would take place low over a busy arterial road. If he had been, as you put it, "flying straight and level at 400Kts and 100ft across a road", there would have been no accident, 11 people would still be alive and we could all be getting worked up about some other incident.
My point is that if this geometry was planned, briefed and approved, then it was unsafe and there are lots of people whose job it was to prevent it going wrong. The buck most certainly does not stop with the pilot.
I am merely pointing out that flying straight and level at 400Kts and 100ft across a road is less "insane" than the continuous stream of airliners that approach Heathrow and many other airports around the world across busy roads and houses despite aviation's long history of final approach crashes.
My comment was addressing the rest of the manoeuvre. From the moment the roll started on the upward leg he is is changing the axis of the display with the inevitable result that the highest energy part of the manoeuvre would take place low over a busy arterial road. If he had been, as you put it, "flying straight and level at 400Kts and 100ft across a road", there would have been no accident, 11 people would still be alive and we could all be getting worked up about some other incident.
My point is that if this geometry was planned, briefed and approved, then it was unsafe and there are lots of people whose job it was to prevent it going wrong. The buck most certainly does not stop with the pilot.
Yes, OK, Idle Bystander. See if you can find a few display sequence diagrams and then superimpose them on a selection of airfields. As I mentioned before, Farnborough is an interesting and famous case. Either that or next time you go to an Airshow, have a look at what's underneath the manoeuvres.
Remember that the manoeuvre in question was performed where it was and in the orientation it was because of the requirement to fit between a number of avoidance areas. Without those this could have been a lot worse - or may not have happened at all.
There often isn't a lot of choice. Well, maybe one. But I don't believe that's called for.
Remember that the manoeuvre in question was performed where it was and in the orientation it was because of the requirement to fit between a number of avoidance areas. Without those this could have been a lot worse - or may not have happened at all.
There often isn't a lot of choice. Well, maybe one. But I don't believe that's called for.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comment was addressing the rest of the manoeuvre. From the moment the roll started on the upward leg he is is changing the axis of the display with the inevitable result that the highest energy part of the manoeuvre would take place low over a busy arterial road.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been plenty of discussion, and involving the ECHR, whether media speculation about potential proceedings or just active proceedings should be curtailed and strict liability imposed for contempt of court.
The upshot was that strict liability curtailing the publication of documents should generally be imposed in respect of active proceedings only.
I am not aware in the current case that proceedings are "active".
In the event there were to be active proceedings, I doubt very much that some of the more pejorative and uninformed posts on this forum would find themselves being used in those proceedings.
So whilst one might have the view that some posts here push the limits of decency, the law does little to deter such posts.
The upshot was that strict liability curtailing the publication of documents should generally be imposed in respect of active proceedings only.
I am not aware in the current case that proceedings are "active".
In the event there were to be active proceedings, I doubt very much that some of the more pejorative and uninformed posts on this forum would find themselves being used in those proceedings.
So whilst one might have the view that some posts here push the limits of decency, the law does little to deter such posts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LlamaFarmer
Would he have hit the ground?
Would he have hit the ground?
Courtney Mil
Remember that the manoeuvre in question was performed where it was and in the orientation it was because of the requirement to fit between a number of avoidance areas. Without those this could have been a lot worse - or may not have happened at all.
Remember that the manoeuvre in question was performed where it was and in the orientation it was because of the requirement to fit between a number of avoidance areas. Without those this could have been a lot worse - or may not have happened at all.
Last edited by Above The Clouds; 9th Feb 2016 at 01:17. Reason: text edit
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D SQDRN 97th IOTC
Doubt very much?
There are no circumstances in which any posts from this or any other forum could be used in legal proceedings. That is not the risk about which I expressed concern.
Little?
There are currently no active proceedings so, currently, there is no reason in law that such posts should not be made/published nor quoted in the press. That was not my point.
The legal position would change if legal proceedings were to be commenced. ie If the pilot was to be arrested or charged.
(I agree broadly with your reference to decency except that I consider that several posts have gone way beyond the limits of decency.)
----------
If anyone is interested, I gave the advice below to PPRuNe Admin in the days when I used to help behind the scenes with legal matters. It relates to active proceedings.
In the event there were to be active proceedings, I doubt very much that some of the more pejorative and uninformed posts on this forum would find themselves being used in those proceedings.
There are no circumstances in which any posts from this or any other forum could be used in legal proceedings. That is not the risk about which I expressed concern.
So whilst one might have the view that some posts here push the limits of decency, the law does little to deter such posts.
There are currently no active proceedings so, currently, there is no reason in law that such posts should not be made/published nor quoted in the press. That was not my point.
The legal position would change if legal proceedings were to be commenced. ie If the pilot was to be arrested or charged.
(I agree broadly with your reference to decency except that I consider that several posts have gone way beyond the limits of decency.)
----------
If anyone is interested, I gave the advice below to PPRuNe Admin in the days when I used to help behind the scenes with legal matters. It relates to active proceedings.
In the UK, the press are entitled to report evidence given by witnesses (factual and expert) but they are not permitted to comment upon it, nor to express opinions about the guilt/innocence of the defendant.
I'd be surprised if the rules are significantly different in other developed jurisdictions.
Given the name of this website, I think we have a particular responsibility in aviation cases. Casual readers and journalists often assume that people who post here are professional pilots. As we know, many are not - and even those who are sometimes post nonsense.
If this site is an accurate reflection of the aviation industry then pilots are very quick (far too quick IMHO) to criticise/blame fellow pilots - and to pontificate about what the pilot or crew concerned should/should not have done. (Contrary to popular belief, that unfortunate tendency is shared by lawyers.)
eg
There is too often an unfortunate tendency to focus upon the potential consequences for contributors/PPRuNe rather than upon the potentially very damaging consequences (legal or other) for people who have been criticised/pilloried on a public website.
Not using someone's name is irrelevant if he/she can readily be identified from the context.
I'd be surprised if the rules are significantly different in other developed jurisdictions.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
Sections 1 and 2 create a strict liability rule which makes it a contempt of court to publish anything to the public which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, even if there is no intent to cause such prejudice.
Ignorance of the law (or, where applicable, the existence of a specific reporting restriction or its terms) is no defence.
The strict liability rule applies to all publications, which is defined very widely as including “any speech, writing, or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large”.
Accordingly the strict liability rule is relevant not only to newspapers and broadcasters but also to online media and individual users of social media websites.
The strict liability applies once proceedings are active, which means that the relevant initial step must have been taken, such as placing a suspect under arrest, or charging him/her.
Whether or not proceedings for contempt of court could be successfully brought against the site owners should, in my opinion, be a secondary consideration; fairness to someone on trial is far more important.Sections 1 and 2 create a strict liability rule which makes it a contempt of court to publish anything to the public which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, even if there is no intent to cause such prejudice.
Ignorance of the law (or, where applicable, the existence of a specific reporting restriction or its terms) is no defence.
The strict liability rule applies to all publications, which is defined very widely as including “any speech, writing, or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large”.
Accordingly the strict liability rule is relevant not only to newspapers and broadcasters but also to online media and individual users of social media websites.
The strict liability applies once proceedings are active, which means that the relevant initial step must have been taken, such as placing a suspect under arrest, or charging him/her.
Given the name of this website, I think we have a particular responsibility in aviation cases. Casual readers and journalists often assume that people who post here are professional pilots. As we know, many are not - and even those who are sometimes post nonsense.
If this site is an accurate reflection of the aviation industry then pilots are very quick (far too quick IMHO) to criticise/blame fellow pilots - and to pontificate about what the pilot or crew concerned should/should not have done. (Contrary to popular belief, that unfortunate tendency is shared by lawyers.)
eg
- Speculation following an accident is almost invariably critical of the pilot(s) involved.
- There is never a shortage of self-righteous posters who say a pilot should lose his licence, never be allowed to fly again etc etc.
There is too often an unfortunate tendency to focus upon the potential consequences for contributors/PPRuNe rather than upon the potentially very damaging consequences (legal or other) for people who have been criticised/pilloried on a public website.
Not using someone's name is irrelevant if he/she can readily be identified from the context.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 7th Feb 2016 at 21:56.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOMCEVAK:
You get it. Suppose the Hunter had cleared the road at 100 feet AGL, thus meeting the minimums (as I understand them). The people below would have seen a jet diving on them at hundreds of knots, and heard the roar of the engine at full power less than 100 feet above their heads. With the nose high, I wouldn't be surprised if jet blast would be a factor. That's insane. People could have been killed by panicked drivers.
I gather some of you can't grasp how this is very different from routine landings at airports. I greatly doubt jets are passing 100 feet over roads like the A27, but if they are, they aren't diving at full power.
steep flightpath angles, such as those that occur during a loop, do present a significant risk of impact with what is directly underneath the aircraft if the manoeuvre deviates excessively from the norm.
The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers. These considerations are what often dictate the restrictions imposed at air displays.
The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers. These considerations are what often dictate the restrictions imposed at air displays.
I gather some of you can't grasp how this is very different from routine landings at airports. I greatly doubt jets are passing 100 feet over roads like the A27, but if they are, they aren't diving at full power.
PrivtPilotRadarTech,
Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up now. There may be one small element in there that could have one foot in the realm of the possible. But for the most part, that is magnificent juvenile sensationalism.
It's years since I saw Airplane, but that's just bought it all back so I thank you for that.
And this one is just for fun...
Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up now. There may be one small element in there that could have one foot in the realm of the possible. But for the most part, that is magnificent juvenile sensationalism.
Originally Posted by PrivtPilotRadarTech
The people below would have seen a jet diving on them at hundreds of knots, and heard the roar of the engine at full power less than 100 feet above their heads. With the nose high, I wouldn't be surprised if jet blast would be a factor. That's insane. People could have been killed by panicked drivers.
Originally Posted by PrivtPilotRadarTech
I greatly doubt jets are passing 100 feet over roads like the A27
And this one is just for fun...
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 7th Feb 2016 at 22:16.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil:
I carefully described what happened on the A27, shifting it to 100' AGL. Which element is not what actually happened?
1. The people below would have seen a jet diving on them at hundreds of knots
2. and heard the roar of the engine at full power less than 100 feet above their heads.
3. With the nose high
Which of your photos shows shows an aircraft at or below 100' AGL, over traffic- the last one, where the traffic has been stopped? And do you figure that aircraft was pulling out of a loop at the time?
Thanks for making my point. Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up.
Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up now. There may be one small element in there that could have one foot in the realm of the possible. But for the most part, that is magnificent juvenile sensationalism.
1. The people below would have seen a jet diving on them at hundreds of knots
2. and heard the roar of the engine at full power less than 100 feet above their heads.
3. With the nose high
Which of your photos shows shows an aircraft at or below 100' AGL, over traffic- the last one, where the traffic has been stopped? And do you figure that aircraft was pulling out of a loop at the time?
Thanks for making my point. Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Some of those you encourage not to be critical of the pilot on this forum may have little genuine interest in aviation. Some might even be journalists. As laudable as your sentiments are, and they are shared by many on this forum including me, the behaviour of the minority will not change.
To repeat...there are no active proceedings, the law does little to deter such posts.
CM
I would disengage with PPRT. I see a wind up merchant.....
Some of those you encourage not to be critical of the pilot on this forum may have little genuine interest in aviation. Some might even be journalists. As laudable as your sentiments are, and they are shared by many on this forum including me, the behaviour of the minority will not change.
To repeat...there are no active proceedings, the law does little to deter such posts.
CM
I would disengage with PPRT. I see a wind up merchant.....
Would one of the display types here be willing to go into the relationship between DA holders and their DAEs? Do they stay in touch and discuss things regularly through the season? I get the impression that it's very much a mentor/mentee type relationship with the DAE there to help as much as possible?
It seems the civvy relationship is rather different from the more formal military authorisation process. Apart from the timeless "bar chat" (where most of us have learned as much as from formal instruction) is there any way for passing on lessons and gotchas that colleagues have encountered on the same type?
It seems the civvy relationship is rather different from the more formal military authorisation process. Apart from the timeless "bar chat" (where most of us have learned as much as from formal instruction) is there any way for passing on lessons and gotchas that colleagues have encountered on the same type?
This question of height has taken up pages and pages of what each of us think is sensible. That looses the point because there is and will be a real answer. It can not be ambiguous, neither should it be ambiguous as to the reasons for these prescribed heights - regardless to what individuals may think of them.
It might irritate some to be questioned but when the AAIB published their bulletin of Sept 4 2015. It is that report that has generated the headlines in the press that relate to heights and the subsequent comments both online and off it. When the AAIB say:-
For those concerned with fairness what has stopped anyone clarifying that action? Its Feb 2016. That is 6 months since that information was released and yet the background and further clarity of this should have been possible back in Sept 15 shouldn't it? After all when a subsequent document questioned the aircraft permit a press release came from the CAA within 24hrs.
CAP403 was in its 13th edition at the time of the accident and so it is way beyond a "first draft". Therefore something so fundamental as definitions of heights and manoeuvres should have common understanding. Meaning when the relevant item under CAP403 is consistent, getting a DA under the guidance and subsequent mentoring of one DAE should also be consistent with every other DAE.
Asking those questions doesn't seem pejorative, unfair or indecent; that all seems common sense and entirely consistent to other areas of aviation that dictate what we can and can not do in order that firstly we stay safe, others stay safe, we do not break the law and our insurance might remain valid.
Personally the law and its consequences as it may apply to anyone involved here are less interesting than understanding the thinking behind the wider process of what is and is not accepted and who or what takes precedence. Asking questions on a "professional pilots" forum seems also to be a sensible thing to do.
Thanks.
It might irritate some to be questioned but when the AAIB published their bulletin of Sept 4 2015. It is that report that has generated the headlines in the press that relate to heights and the subsequent comments both online and off it. When the AAIB say:-
and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about45º. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre...
CAP403 was in its 13th edition at the time of the accident and so it is way beyond a "first draft". Therefore something so fundamental as definitions of heights and manoeuvres should have common understanding. Meaning when the relevant item under CAP403 is consistent, getting a DA under the guidance and subsequent mentoring of one DAE should also be consistent with every other DAE.
Asking those questions doesn't seem pejorative, unfair or indecent; that all seems common sense and entirely consistent to other areas of aviation that dictate what we can and can not do in order that firstly we stay safe, others stay safe, we do not break the law and our insurance might remain valid.
Personally the law and its consequences as it may apply to anyone involved here are less interesting than understanding the thinking behind the wider process of what is and is not accepted and who or what takes precedence. Asking questions on a "professional pilots" forum seems also to be a sensible thing to do.
Thanks.
"Some might even be journalists."
I don't want to alarm you D SQD, but I have a strong suspicion that you might be right.....
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that not only might some of these 'journalists' be sympathetic, but that they might actually have done a bit of flying?
FL - apologies if I misconstrued your earlier post - I'm just very sceptical about anything you read on here. Yes, it is usually possible to "sort the wheat from the Walts" (great phrase) but I read another thread recently where a similar topic was discussed. One poster related a tale about another site, where someone who purported to be an experienced 747 captain made regular and informative posts, which both educated and entertained. Then they made a fundamental error - and it turned out to be a 12-year kid! FWIW, I strongly suspect that several posters on this thread have never flown any type of aircraft, and it is quite possible that the reason why they have never flown any type of aircraft, is because they're not old enough!
I don't want to alarm you D SQD, but I have a strong suspicion that you might be right.....
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that not only might some of these 'journalists' be sympathetic, but that they might actually have done a bit of flying?
FL - apologies if I misconstrued your earlier post - I'm just very sceptical about anything you read on here. Yes, it is usually possible to "sort the wheat from the Walts" (great phrase) but I read another thread recently where a similar topic was discussed. One poster related a tale about another site, where someone who purported to be an experienced 747 captain made regular and informative posts, which both educated and entertained. Then they made a fundamental error - and it turned out to be a 12-year kid! FWIW, I strongly suspect that several posters on this thread have never flown any type of aircraft, and it is quite possible that the reason why they have never flown any type of aircraft, is because they're not old enough!
Originally Posted by DaveUnwin
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that not only might some of these 'journalists' be sympathetic, but that they might actually have done a bit of flying?