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 2nd May 2016, 14:21
  #1541 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Yellowjack99
Are the Hunters now flying, I think one was climbing out of Kemble this morning?
I believe it flew on air an test the other week as well.
Hunty
The one you saw fly out of Kemble today was T-7 XL577, which was starting it flight to Jorden with a c/s of RJAF577. It flew to Friedrichshafen then onto Jorden.
So in essence civilian Hunter's are not grounded ! or there must be scope from within the CAA to provide dispensation to allow civilian Hunter's to fly ?
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 14:50
  #1542 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,622
ATC, how do you figure RJAF is a civil reg?
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 2nd May 2016, 14:55
  #1543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Above The Clouds
So in essence civilian Hunter's are not grounded ! or there must be scope from within the CAA to provide dispensation to allow civilian Hunter's to fly ?
I'm guessing it's a special dispensation for air test and flight out of the country as it's being exported off the G register...?

The CAA gave a similar dispensation 20 odd years ago for the Buccaneer's that were not allowed to fly on G-reg in UK but were allowed to be airtested and then flown out of the UK on their ferry flights down to Thunder City in SA.
GeeRam is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 15:16
  #1544 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
how do you figure RJAF is a civil reg?
I am not as that was the callsign not necessarily the reg and as she is/was civil registered as G-XMHD up to Feb 2016, just asking the question.

Would seem a touch cynical to stop it flying on the civil register then allow the same airframe to fly in UK airspace if the registration has been changed to a foreign one, the CAA website doesn't state transferred to the RJAF, so it would be interesting to know if it was returned to a military airframe again under the RJAF just to get around the grounding of civil Hunters ?
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 15:20
  #1545 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,622
Fair enough
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 2nd May 2016, 21:29
  #1546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,432
AtC,if you check GINFO,it was de-reg. in Feb2016,to RJAF.....
sycamore is online now  
Old 2nd May 2016, 21:45
  #1547 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
scyamore; It does not state the RJAF, it states, 'Transferred to another country or authority - JORDAN'
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 10:57
  #1548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,328
He is now being investigated for manslaughter

Shoreham crash pilot investigated for manslaughter - BBC News
NutLoose is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 11:16
  #1549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Just to point out that the news release states that AH was interviewed under caution in December, so this is not a new development. It has only come to light because the police want access to the info collected by the AAIB and hence have had to go to the High Court.
Caramba is online now  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 12:25
  #1550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 59
Shoreham Crash

Pilot being investigated for possible manslaughter charges by Sussex Police.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 14:22
  #1551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Also explains why they were reluctant to comment ..........
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 22:41
  #1552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 63
Posts: 0
Worrying times!

The interesting thing about this case is that no matter what is in the AAIB report, they can be second guessed by Plod and his pals. The reason they don't investigate accidents in the first place is because they are not trained or equipped to do so. This is outside their area of expertise. At best they can ask a few so called experts, who have a different opinion to the AAIB, for their opinion. At worst, they can... the mind boggles. Remember, all The Filth want to do is nail you against the wall. They are certainly not interested in proving anyone's innocence.

The bottom line is if Plod win this one, the AAIB become the enemy. Why? Because anything they find can and will be used against you.

PM
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 22:50
  #1553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,116
How the authorities allow someone to get a DA on a Jet Provost and then display a Hawker Hunter is beyond belief.
How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.
And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.
Talk about "an accident waiting to happen".
Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.

Last edited by Arfur Dent; 10th Jul 2016 at 08:34.
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 23:31
  #1554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
There's a very interesting and soul-searching set of questions here. On the one hand, our industry strives for an open-and-honest reporting culture. In fact, we now use the word 'just' and there is a (misguided?) belief that honesty brings a degree of protection. In the same breath, we cannot be protected from the rule of law and it's consequences. The bottom line is that legal types will pour over and make a legal interpretation the 'endangerment' clause of the ANO:

138 Endangering safety of any person or property
A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
Clearly, there will be endless discussion about the terms 'negligent' and/or 'reckless'. Personally, I'll be fascinated to see how this progresses, not just because of the specific occurrence.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 00:34
  #1555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 55
Posts: 41
As I said some time ago in one of the other threads: If a number of dead and seriously injured people turn up on their patch, the Police are under a duty to investigate the circumstances and provide evidence to the CPS, who then decide if a prosecution is in order.

The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation. In fact if you were to talk to any of the officers involved you would probably find that that they would rather *not* be doing it.

Last edited by dastocks; 9th Jul 2016 at 00:37. Reason: added some extra text
dastocks is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 02:26
  #1556 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,638
I know the rhetoric is more exciting and inflammatory, but the CPS view of Manslaughter is reasonably clear cut;

Homicide; Murder and Manslaughter: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

The Breach of the Duty of Care

The ordinary law of negligence applies to these cases, in that those with an established duty of care, must act as a "reasonable person would do in their position". If they fail to do so they will have breached that duty. This is an objective test and will be based upon the defendant's position at the time of the breach.

Therefore, if the defendant has acted within the range of what was generally accepted as being the standard practice (even if it is at the lower end) it will be difficult to describe such behaviour as falling far below the standard of a reasonable person in his position.

An unqualified person is not to be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person. Therefore the lack of skill will not be a defence if the conduct is deemed negligent. If however, the defendant has particular skills and knowledge of a danger that the reasonable person would not have, his actions should be judged in the light of those skills or knowledge. This test is an objective test.

It does not matter that the defendant did not appreciate the risk (the foreseeable risk of death) only that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant's position. (R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000 CLR 858 and AG ref No: 2 of 1999 3 All ER 182.)
The Grossness of the Breach

It is for a jury to decide whether the defendant's conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act or omission. In R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328, the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term 'reprehensible' would be apt to describe the nature of the conduct.
Two's in is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 09:23
  #1557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Argue Dent, I find your post just a tad irritating.

Unless you have a hotline to the AAIB you have no idea what their findings may or may not be.

I doubt that AH has been given multiple stop instructions. If you are thinking of the Southport incident I believe he was departing the area when the DD issued the stop. I am unaware of any other incidents.

You can have no idea if the pilot has "forgiven himself" or not.

As previously stated in this thread, the pilot was an RAF QFI, had plenty of time in Harriers and I guess Hawks, regularly displayed an RV-8 as well as the JP.

He would - must have been - displaying under the terms of his DA.

The police are obliged to investigate, but that does not imply guilt, or even a charge .

So perhaps desist with the "of course he must be prosecuted". Hmm?

Caramba
Caramba is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 13:44
  #1558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,691
The interesting thing about this case is that no matter what is in the AAIB report, they can be second guessed by Plod and his pals. The reason they don't investigate accidents in the first place is because they are not trained or equipped to do so. This is outside their area of expertise. At best they can ask a few so called experts, who have a different opinion to the AAIB, for their opinion. At worst, they can... the mind boggles. Remember, all The Filth want to do is nail you against the wall. They are certainly not interested in proving anyone's innocence.
I think that I'd express it slightly differently.

Police objective: find out if anybody has committed a crime, if they have, who, and aim to successfully prosecute them.

AAIB objective: find out if anything from this accident could have been prevented, if so, publish recommendations to try and avoid future similar or related accidents.

Whilst they have similar investigative powers, they have totally different objectives - and so it's inevitable that they will cut across each other.

Realistically - the police must be constantly investigating crimes (or potential crimes) where they don't have in-house expertise, and calling that in from outside.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 16:59
  #1559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Dear Arfur Dent,

Just a couple of points about your post there.

Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
How the authorities allow someone to get a DA on a Jet Provost and then display a Hawker Hunter is beyond belief.
AH was issued an Aircraft Type Rating Exemption (Full) by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) on 27 August 2014 enabling him to fly the Hawker Hunter, Jet Provost Mk 1-5 and Strikemaster aeroplanes, valid until 27 August 2015. He held a European Union Class 1 Medical Certificate with no limitations, issued on 20 January 2015 and valid until 31 January 2016.

He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard3 category aerobatic manoeuvres.

Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.
I only know of one occasion. There was no statement that his display manoeuvres were deemed "dangerously incompetent".

Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Why the pilot himself is allowed to be so delusional that he personally forgives himself is beyond belief.
Has he said that to you? If not, who has he said it to?

Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.
He had also met the requirement stipulated in Schedule 2 of his DA to have flown:

‘three full display sequences, one of which was on the aircraft to be displayed, not more than 90 days prior to the flight in question.’

From the pilot’s electronic logbook, it was established that the pilot had flown a total of 40.25 hours in the Hunter since 26 May 2011, of which 9.7 hours had been flown in the last 90 days and 2.1 hours in the last 28 days. He had also flown air displays in other types of aircraft, and the investigation will study his other logbooks for further information.

Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.
Police only charge people if they have evidence that a crime has been committed. I do not recall them claiming any such thing. They have purely stated that they are investigating as we already knew and as is their duty.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 17:13
  #1560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 6,385
Do I take it Arfur Den is a Daily Mail reader
Wander00 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.