Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
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.
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 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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,844
Received 2,808 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the past there was always an open and frank exchange of information that would be given freely for the benefit of safety
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,844
Received 2,808 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 . . .
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 . . .
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The risk of being hit by a falling hunter is so miniscule compared to the risk of driving down that road"
but on that one day the risk of being hit by a Hunter turned out to be 100%............
OK that is the .00001% chance but it still happened and so it has to be investigated and , if necessary, there will be a court case
but on that one day the risk of being hit by a Hunter turned out to be 100%............
OK that is the .00001% chance but it still happened and so it has to be investigated and , if necessary, there will be a court case
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
S-D
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just culture"doesn't mean prosecution if you make a mistake, it means a proper investigation should be made and no blame attached unless deliberate violations are proven to have taken place. I have made mistakes and had reports raised against me. The interview procedure was to find out why I had made that mistake and try to stop it happening again. And Nutty, the CAA follow the EASA rule that if you certify work, it is done in accordance with specific maintenance documentation. Certainly is the policy of my companies engineering management, they never condon pick and choosing the way of doing tasks outside the manuals instructions. I have grounded aircraft because I do not have the right bolt and the company have always never put pressure on me to use illegal alternates.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be you then Tourist, because in the first part of the sentence above you are talking about probability and not risk. You have included the consequence - being hit by the Hunter (I think we can safely say that will be curtains). The combination of the two is risk, but then you knew that didn't you.
S-D
S-D
Feel better now?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Many many thousands of cars used that road "on that one day". The vast majority were not hit.
2. As Salad kindly pointed out, it's a probability not a risk, and it was not 100% even for the cars that were hit. Even 1 in a million chances happen once in a while.
3. You are going to have to add an awful lot more zeros to your % chance estimate, otherwise 1 in every 100,000 cars that ever passed down that road in the last 50 years would be wiped out. I'm pretty sure that that has not happened...
So Tourist, are you advocating we don't do risk assessments and mitigation, or just that we don't investigate accidents where the probability of occurrence was quite low?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm advocating that we do do investigations, but that we should not automatically make changes to stop the event happening again.
We should look at the effect on the rest of life that any changes will make, and balance that against the likelihood of it happening again and the consequences if it did.
For example.
After the first aircraft in history crashed onto a person on the ground, we could have decided to stop this event ever happening again.
To achieve this we would have to stop all flying. This would be effective, but rather an over-reaction.
If there was an easy change that increased safety without greatly impacting other areas, then of course make the changes.
In flight safety regulations however, the easy miles have already been walked over the last 50 yrs. Every change we now make has miniscule to zero effect on safety yet huge impact on aviation.
This is very plain if you look at the graphs of crashes vs air miles over course of aviation's history. It is a pretty flat line after a steep improvement since the start of flight safety in the bad old 50s/60s.
We seem to have forgotten what it means to accept a 1 in a million chance. That means that once in a while the event will happen.
This is as expected.
This requires no changes.
This means we are operating as intended.
We should accept this!
If we want less than this then why say we accept 1 in a million?
We should look at the effect on the rest of life that any changes will make, and balance that against the likelihood of it happening again and the consequences if it did.
For example.
After the first aircraft in history crashed onto a person on the ground, we could have decided to stop this event ever happening again.
To achieve this we would have to stop all flying. This would be effective, but rather an over-reaction.
If there was an easy change that increased safety without greatly impacting other areas, then of course make the changes.
In flight safety regulations however, the easy miles have already been walked over the last 50 yrs. Every change we now make has miniscule to zero effect on safety yet huge impact on aviation.
This is very plain if you look at the graphs of crashes vs air miles over course of aviation's history. It is a pretty flat line after a steep improvement since the start of flight safety in the bad old 50s/60s.
We seem to have forgotten what it means to accept a 1 in a million chance. That means that once in a while the event will happen.
This is as expected.
This requires no changes.
This means we are operating as intended.
We should accept this!
If we want less than this then why say we accept 1 in a million?
TVM Tourist and I see where you're coming from and agree. But what about the first part of the question, risk assessment and mitigation. IIRC, a while back you said you were 'glad' that a suggestion to mitigate risks or hazards had been rejected, followed by multiple fatalities.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done salad. You have pedantically pointed out the semantic error in my post.
It's a bit more of a challenge to educate you in some of the more fundamental aspects of risk management - like the need for it!
Many on here have tried, but I fear it is time wasted with you.
S-D
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,844
Received 2,808 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
I see the Hunter and airshows as an easy target with few users, driven by a press, yes it is a tragedy people died and everyone from the pilot down, myself included, if they could right that wrong, they would.
BUT you do not get a knee jerk reaction as this elsewhere , refuse trucks are still in Scotland collecting rubbish, Ferries still sailing across the Channel from Zeebrugge, Airliners still flying over the Alps. True we learnt from these things, but sad as it is, financial implications rule the roost.
BUT you do not get a knee jerk reaction as this elsewhere , refuse trucks are still in Scotland collecting rubbish, Ferries still sailing across the Channel from Zeebrugge, Airliners still flying over the Alps. True we learnt from these things, but sad as it is, financial implications rule the roost.