Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
.
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?
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 9th Mar 2016 at 09:03.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga
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
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:
I am not a member of BADA so don't know what led to this perception.
It struck me as a sensible proposal.
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..."
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..."
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?
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.
It struck me as a sensible proposal.
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.
However, I was rather surprised at the tone of the joint Company/BADA Press Release.
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-aviat...airshow-3.html
You ask:-
The answer has already been hinted at earlier in this thread @ post 1073 where someone you have great respect for says:-
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?
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-aviat...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?
Is my assumption wrong?
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.
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?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-aviat...ir-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.
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-aviat...ir-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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
As you say, water has passed under the bridge since then.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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
It will save us much time and angst
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Next Special Bulletin released. This is NOT the final report:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...016_G-BXFI.pdf
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...016_G-BXFI.pdf
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one section
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by airpolice; 10th Mar 2016 at 13:12. Reason: To add the AAIB Disclaimer
Are they serious?
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
S-D
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
S-D
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.
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'd have thought that they lack:
1. A senior big jet training captain.
2. A senior ATCO.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once a Pilot
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.
Well, seems unlikely to me that UK displays will survive as we knew them.
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.