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 9th Jul 2016, 16:54
  #1561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: york
Posts: 29
Arfur,
I agree with you entirely. Others may not have had the same fj display experience, and their comments should be viewed accordingly.
thrusts a must is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 17:55
  #1562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Thrusts a must,

But plenty do. And Arfur's comments are clearly contradicted by even the first AAIB report. The post is emotive and inconsistent with the CURRENTLY released facts.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 18:21
  #1563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 17,697
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.
True, but as the police have no expertise in aviation accident research surely they must seek that from those that do, evidence that will have been gathered, examined and conclusions reached as to the cause, based on the evidence collated.
What extra can PC plod gain from that gathered evidence and the experts employed to determine the cause, if the police bring in a third party to view the said evidence, surely that can only come to the same conclusions or otherwise the evidence will be seen as flawed and also the findings.
Will there not be issues if some of that evidence was given to the AAIB confidentially?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 18:54
  #1564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
In a way the question being asked here is has an AAIB report ever been used as the basis for a prosecution? If the AAIB find there was a material failing and publish such, the CPS decide to prosecute, the AAIB staff can be called as expert witnesses, so no conflict of interest.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 19:12
  #1565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 691
I'm not sure why, under a 'just' safety culture there is any conflict, whatsoever, between allowing for people to learn from mistakes, and punishing people who have made a mistake.

It's the difference between punishing someone who ND'd a rifle when they've not been provided with any training, and were pushed into a situation they were unfamiliar with, and punishing someone who is up to date with WHT and was using the rifle in an inappropriate manner.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 21:14
  #1566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 17,697
There is Alfred, it has happened before where engineers were interviewed in relation to a crash ( in the US I think ) and on the basis of their testament, some of them were prosecuted, some if I remember over issues that arose but were unrelated.....
You cannot run an accident enquiry and expect people to give evidence to assist in determining the root cause of an accident, if that information will be used to prosecute those giving it...
It will never happen again, indeed there is a culture forming now where people will simply refuse to give evidence and the possibility from that will arise that the true cause of an accident may not be found and others may die needlessly as a result.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 21:48
  #1567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,781
"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 21:52
  #1568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 279
Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The 'Building Blocks' of an investigation are the same regardless of the severity or otherwise of an incident.
You
A previous poster has stated the police do not have experience of investigating aviation accidents which is actually not altogether correct. There will always be some police involvement.

Where an investigation involves an area which is not the norm, experts in whichever field is relevant will be utilised.

It should also be noted that police investigations will focus on ALL aspects of an incident / occurrence.

Forget the bad press, the vast majority of 'PC Plod' do the right thing. 'DC Plod', who will be investigating this incident, is unlikely to leave any stone unturned.

The facts will be presented as they are. I for one do not wish for a Witch-hunt.

TN.

Last edited by tarantonight; 9th Jul 2016 at 22:02.
tarantonight is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 22:02
  #1569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post
"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".

G
In principle it shouldn't happen for mistakes; gross negligence maybe.
Stupidbutsaveable is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 05:37
  #1570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".

I'm not sure what the AAIB/CAA/Civ Pol use, but the MAA use the DA FAiR model for determining culpability.


Page 38 of 46 (Ch 3 Annex C). - the easier-to-follow flowchart is on page 44 - 45 (App 2 to Annex C of Ch 3).
just another jocky is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 06:11
  #1571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
There is Alfred, it has happened before where engineers were interviewed in relation to a crash ( in the US I think ) and on the basis of their testament, some of them were prosecuted, some if I remember over issues that arose but were unrelated.....
You cannot run an accident enquiry and expect people to give evidence to assist in determining the root cause of an accident, if that information will be used to prosecute those giving it...
It will never happen again, indeed there is a culture forming now where people will simply refuse to give evidence and the possibility from that will arise that the true cause of an accident may not be found and others may die needlessly as a result.
I'm sorry, but a pilot can't just walk away from an accident that may have been caused from his faults and simply say 'flight safety, can't hold me responsible'.

I am willing to admit there may be a series of holes lining up, but the pilot cannot simply be absolved. And if others involved in flight safety are willing to risk other peoples' lives because they are unable or unwilling to defend their decisions, then I suggest they need to stop being involved in flying operations.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 09:50
  #1572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,524
Courtney,

Whilst I share entirely the sentiments in your last post, I presume we could reasonably debate that AH's recent and indisputable Hunter experience was far short of that required for carrying out a low level aeros display - regardless of his currency on other types.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 10:24
  #1573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,959
My thoughts too. I also cannot imagine a service pilot receiving his display auth in a Tucano before strapping themselves to a Hawk borrowed from a mate.

Displaying vintage swept-wing jets is a relatively new discipline as, quite simply, there was no such thing available outside of the military. I would argue that both common sense and sensible rules failed to make the fast-jet conversion.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 12:55
  #1574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 17,697
Alfred that wasn't what I was trying to get across, I was trying to show that total honesty and openness by individuals in helping the investigation to move forward can and has as such, lead to prosecution of those individuals, and with human nature as it is, it means that vital evidence in determining the cause and thus preventing it happening again will be buried.
In the past there was always an open and frank exchange of information that would be given freely for the benefit of safety, unfortunately in the modern world of a blame culture, accidents, failings in procedures and errors no longer exist.
I am not saying that people should not be prosecuted if it is a blatant case, but I am saying that it does have a negative effect on flight safety, and I won't even mention the poor state of affairs where accountable managers come into it all.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2016, 21:30
  #1575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 169
In the past there was always an open and frank exchange of information that would be given freely for the benefit of safety
The nature of aviation accidents often means there is no one left to have a "frank exchange of information" with. In this particular case, as many have noted, it's reasonable to expect that the pilot would not be able to recall precisely what happened due to the severity of his injuries and the amount of time that passed before he could be interviewed.

Speaking generally, I don't think there was ever a time in history when people weren't self-serving and motivated to cover up reckless acts. It would be very rare to have someone say "Yeah, I thought it would be fun to [commit reckless act]."

Fortunately, in modern times we have an amazing ability to analyze wreckage and we often have access to recorded data that precisely reveals what happened. That sort of evidence doesn't involve relying on "frank exchanges". In this case there are numerous video recordings that show in great detail what happened. Video recorders aren't going to start lying or refuse to cooperate if they are used in the police investigation.

Speaking generally again, in cases where there has been a "conscious, substantial and unjustifiable disregard for risk", how to you prevent future occurrences? I think the threat of prosecution is going to do a lot more than an AAIB report.

It's certainly gotten the attention of a lot of self-described display pilots on PPRuNe, and I think that's a good thing.
PrivtPilotRadarTech is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 00:57
  #1576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 17,697
Quote:


Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post

"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".

G

In principle it shouldn't happen for mistakes; gross negligence maybe.
Unfortunately in the last few years things have changed, and in my eyes not for the better, the CAA have basically stated that you do not need to adhere to parts of the maintenance manuals, something that was previously cast in stone and the gotcha for all of those that fail to carry out the required work, but now by the fact it is left up to the individual (quite wrongly in my eyes) it can open up a can of worms in personal interpretation as to what is and is not required, and that can in itself lead to maintenance being budget orientated and not safety.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 20:15
  #1577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Early Summer

Is when the AAIB estimated they will publish the final report.
No doubt most of us will read that report with great interest as to how aviation safety can be improved. As for sensation seeking journos and trolls, may the mods continue to moderate them.....
D SQDRN 97th IOTC is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2016, 09:42
  #1578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,134
Courtney - Let me say I admire many of your posts and understand that you are a knowledgeable 'witness' in all of this.

Firstly, I should acknowledge that some of my comments were judgemental which is not my style. I am ex FJ and automatically sympathise with the pilot when things go wrong so let's get that out of the way. I have removed the "forgiveness" part of my post too because it was wrongly interpreted as referring to Shoreham when I meant that he had carried on without changing anything after the "STOP" order(s) - I was told there were 2 but stand corrected.
What I find most extraordinary is the way that you list AH's recent "experience" as though it answers those of us questioning his fitness (i.e. recent experience/practice) to display such a high performance jet.

40.25 hours in the last FIVE YEARS - 8 hours a year!
3 hours a month in the last 3 months.
2 hours in the last 28 days.

AND he flew commercial jets for a living AND he displayed a low performance Jet Provost AND flew in a piston display team.

The hours above are just about enough to remain current - let alone carry out low level display aerobatics. As you know, Courtney, RAF display pilots were full time professionals on the ONE type they displayed. They did their job (say, 3 trips a day) and practiced their aeros after work - much to the delight of people like me who would always stop and watch. You would never get a full time Herc pilot driving somewhere to do a Hunter display, and then next weekend displaying a JP! It should never happen and, hopefully will never happen again.

Manslaughter? Not sure really but I think I know what the relatives of the poor innocents on the A27 would think.

All in all, a huge tragedy on many levels and so easily avoidable.
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2016, 14:03
  #1579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 466
WE DO NOT KNOW THE FULL STORY.

Notwithstanding the above statement. But on what we have seen, I reckon the intention of the police is justified, all my sympathy is with the next of kin - most/none of whom had not invited ANY risk as they weren't even attending the air display.

Only one person had control of the flight path . . .
Brian W May is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2016, 15:17
  #1580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by Brian W May View Post
Wall my sympathy is with the next of kin - most/none of whom had not invited ANY risk as they weren't even attending the air display. .
Everybody invites risk the moment they leave their oxygen tent in a hardened bunker.

Life is a sequence of mostly uninvited risks. Why single out aviation?

The risk of being hit by a falling hunter is so miniscule compared to the risk of driving down that road that I seriously wonder if there is anyone left in this country who understands risk assessments.
Tourist 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.