Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
To imply that anyone on a board is directed as to the findings is calumny.
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.
Last edited by tucumseh; 18th Feb 2016 at 11:04. Reason: wrong date
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,914
Received 2,837 Likes
on
1,212 Posts
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.
ed:-
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.
To imply that anyone on a board is directed as to the findings is calumny.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SELondon
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
From a previous thread:
MJ
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
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
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.
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.
Alvin Steele wrote:
It is a very interesting article. 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
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.
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. 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
Assessment of attitude is not new to the display approval process. The emphasis may be changing, but it was already in the checklist.
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.
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
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.
The CAA report is long overdue. This is an (airshow) industry that is in need of an overhaul.
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?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 78
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!?????????????????
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And nothing directly relevant to Shoreham.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 4th Mar 2016 at 21:24.
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..."
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..."