Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Today in an email from the AAIB.
Acting Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, David Miller, said:
“Today marks the first anniversary of the Shoreham air display accident. Our thoughts are with all those affected by this tragedy.
We have published three special bulletins which have included safety recommendations to prevent future similar accidents. Our final report will integrate and expand on those previous bulletins, which dealt with systemic issues, and cover the technical aspects of the accident itself.
The final report is expected to be published later this year.”
Since the accident, the AAIB has published three special bulletins.
Special Bulletin S3/2015, published 4 September 2015.
Special Bulletin S4/2015, published 21 December 2015.
Special Bulletin S1/2016, published 10 March 2016.
Acting Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, David Miller, said:
“Today marks the first anniversary of the Shoreham air display accident. Our thoughts are with all those affected by this tragedy.
We have published three special bulletins which have included safety recommendations to prevent future similar accidents. Our final report will integrate and expand on those previous bulletins, which dealt with systemic issues, and cover the technical aspects of the accident itself.
The final report is expected to be published later this year.”
Since the accident, the AAIB has published three special bulletins.
Special Bulletin S3/2015, published 4 September 2015.
Special Bulletin S4/2015, published 21 December 2015.
Special Bulletin S1/2016, published 10 March 2016.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Victory Show
I do not want to say this but if you pay to go to air shows, this is now one you need to miss, content was good, BUT the new display line is nowhere near the show, so you end up watching it in the distance, and I am talking using a 500MM lens with a 1.4 convertor on and the only way I could get anywhere near a full screen shot was to do a 100% zoom on the camera.
I and a lot of people left early because it was totally pointless staying, after the ground battle had finished, the only chance you had of getting a decent shot or indeed seeing the aircraft flying was during take off or landing, and I wasn't the only person being vocal in that they would never attend again in the current format, that in itself is sad as the profit's go to charity.
I know Shoreham happened and the CAA got anal and had to react, BUT the main crux of the matter of Shoreham was those killed were not involved in the show which by purchasing a ticket you accept the risks, I understand that and see what they are trying to fix, but the sheer fact that they have moved the display line actually increases that risk as it no longer falls within the boundary of the display site the public pay for,
As with everything you get freeloaders, and I watched the show supervisors clear them for them to reappear again the minute the vehicle's left. these were none paying members of the public which are then UNDER the display line, so those that except the risk by purchasing entry are now in effect not being able to enjoy a show at a realistic display format, whilst those that haven't accepted that risk by purchasing a ticket have a full show, call me old fashioned, but isn't that doing exactly what the lessons of Shoreham were supposed to prevent, injury to those outside the show?????
Leaving early I saw more, and was closer to the Spitfire display driving through the uncontrolled environment of the village, than I was in the controlled and paid for show ground.
And in that, there is something fundamentally wrong in this new ethos!
I do not want to say this but if you pay to go to air shows, this is now one you need to miss, content was good, BUT the new display line is nowhere near the show, so you end up watching it in the distance, and I am talking using a 500MM lens with a 1.4 convertor on and the only way I could get anywhere near a full screen shot was to do a 100% zoom on the camera.
I and a lot of people left early because it was totally pointless staying, after the ground battle had finished, the only chance you had of getting a decent shot or indeed seeing the aircraft flying was during take off or landing, and I wasn't the only person being vocal in that they would never attend again in the current format, that in itself is sad as the profit's go to charity.
I know Shoreham happened and the CAA got anal and had to react, BUT the main crux of the matter of Shoreham was those killed were not involved in the show which by purchasing a ticket you accept the risks, I understand that and see what they are trying to fix, but the sheer fact that they have moved the display line actually increases that risk as it no longer falls within the boundary of the display site the public pay for,
As with everything you get freeloaders, and I watched the show supervisors clear them for them to reappear again the minute the vehicle's left. these were none paying members of the public which are then UNDER the display line, so those that except the risk by purchasing entry are now in effect not being able to enjoy a show at a realistic display format, whilst those that haven't accepted that risk by purchasing a ticket have a full show, call me old fashioned, but isn't that doing exactly what the lessons of Shoreham were supposed to prevent, injury to those outside the show?????
Leaving early I saw more, and was closer to the Spitfire display driving through the uncontrolled environment of the village, than I was in the controlled and paid for show ground.
And in that, there is something fundamentally wrong in this new ethos!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Nutty, that was what we observed with the Battle Prom display at Burleigh. In contrast, BBMF, at our 40s weekend could fly low down our High street. Also watched the Reds at an At Home day, only open fields with the obligatory farm house beyond the display line but crowd line along the apron with display line on the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
The other thing that struck me was that any airshow site has to have fire and ambulance in attendance to cover any incident on site, now that they could be miles from the aircraft incident they have the additional problems of trying to battle through show traffic to reach it.
And with the display shifted around it was now with the sun behind it, which made photography more or less pointless and I winced when I saw people with zooms tracking aircraft past the sun, not only were they doing the sensor no good, they were equally doing the same to their eyes.
And with the display shifted around it was now with the sun behind it, which made photography more or less pointless and I winced when I saw people with zooms tracking aircraft past the sun, not only were they doing the sensor no good, they were equally doing the same to their eyes.
Interestingly the road from the A1 roundabout to Old Warden airfield was closed during yesterday's show, and all the fields around had notices saying "no entry - emergency landing area"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
So basically they can have the footage but the pilots statements etc they can't. I do wonder who they will use to make sense of the footage as after all the AAIB are the ones really qualified to do that.
Today (28 September), the High Court handed down its judgment in the case between the Chief Constable of Sussex Police and the Secretary of State for Transport.
Sussex Police applied to the High Court for the disclosure of records that are given a protected status in law. The Secretary of State did not resist the application, since he considers it to be a matter for the Court to decide whether disclosure should be made in cases such as these.
Sussex Police applied for the disclosure of:
Statements made by the pilot to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in response to discussions or interviews;
Film footage of the flight which was made by cameras which had been installed on the aeroplane in question on a voluntary basis; and
Material which has been produced by various other people subsequently, such as experiments conducted and tests done on various aspects of the accident.
The judgment refused the application for disclosure in this case except in relation to the film footage from within the aircraft. The order to disclose materials is subject to a number of conditions.
A spokesperson for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said: “The AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their release. We note today’s judgment and will now release the film footage to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.”
Sussex Police applied to the High Court for the disclosure of records that are given a protected status in law. The Secretary of State did not resist the application, since he considers it to be a matter for the Court to decide whether disclosure should be made in cases such as these.
Sussex Police applied for the disclosure of:
Statements made by the pilot to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in response to discussions or interviews;
Film footage of the flight which was made by cameras which had been installed on the aeroplane in question on a voluntary basis; and
Material which has been produced by various other people subsequently, such as experiments conducted and tests done on various aspects of the accident.
The judgment refused the application for disclosure in this case except in relation to the film footage from within the aircraft. The order to disclose materials is subject to a number of conditions.
A spokesperson for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said: “The AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their release. We note today’s judgment and will now release the film footage to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.”
Sensible decision as it preserves the right of protection against self-incimination and protects the integrity of the 'freedom to speak freely' within the Accident Investigation
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the full judgment:
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) BALPA [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB)
The application for disclosure was evidently treated seriously as it was dealt with by two senior judges, one of whom was the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. (The judgment itself is by the other, Mr Justice Singh, but having the LCJ sign off on it means that this will be taken as strong guidance on how to handle such requests.) BALPA appears to have intervened to make representations on behalf of its members.
Paras 1 to 8 set out the background. Of note is para 8 in which the court records that the AAIB confirmed at the hearing in July that the report was complete and would be likely to be released in the Autumn.
Paras 9 to 26 recite the relevant legislation and probably aren't of much interest to non-lawyers.
Paras 27 to 34 discuss the very limited previous history of similar applications - one each in Scotland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This appears to have been the first such application in the courts of England and Wales.
Paras 35 to 39 discuss the procedure. As a lawyer it is ironically amusing to see the police on the other side of a 'public interest immunity' disclosure argument for once!
Para 40 explains the types of disclosure sought: statements from Mr Hill, cockpit video and results of investigatory tests.
Paras 41 to 45 explain why the Court is not ordering disclosure of Mr Hill's statements. There are two reasons: the AAIB can compel a witness to answer, so there is no 'no comment', and there was no evidence that Mr Hill was cautioned before the AAIB interview. Also, as Singh J points out, the police are free to interview Mr Hill themselves and have done so.
Paras 46 to 50 explain why the Court is ordering disclosure of the cockpit video to the police. The reason given is that where, as here, it seems that the videos were being made for commercial rather than safety monitoring purposes the Court doubts that its order will deter pilots from making such recordings.
Paras 51 to 54 explain why the court is not ordering disclosure of expert investigations. The reason given is that such reports will be published as annexes to the AAIB report in due course and the police are in any event free to commission their own analyses.
Paras 55 and 56 summarise the outcome. Note that the disclosed videos are ordered to be made available only to the Sussex Police, the CPS if necessary, and Mr Hill and his lawyers (whom I assume have probably got copies already, but this is always good practice.)
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) BALPA [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB)
The application for disclosure was evidently treated seriously as it was dealt with by two senior judges, one of whom was the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. (The judgment itself is by the other, Mr Justice Singh, but having the LCJ sign off on it means that this will be taken as strong guidance on how to handle such requests.) BALPA appears to have intervened to make representations on behalf of its members.
Paras 1 to 8 set out the background. Of note is para 8 in which the court records that the AAIB confirmed at the hearing in July that the report was complete and would be likely to be released in the Autumn.
Paras 9 to 26 recite the relevant legislation and probably aren't of much interest to non-lawyers.
Paras 27 to 34 discuss the very limited previous history of similar applications - one each in Scotland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This appears to have been the first such application in the courts of England and Wales.
Paras 35 to 39 discuss the procedure. As a lawyer it is ironically amusing to see the police on the other side of a 'public interest immunity' disclosure argument for once!
Para 40 explains the types of disclosure sought: statements from Mr Hill, cockpit video and results of investigatory tests.
Paras 41 to 45 explain why the Court is not ordering disclosure of Mr Hill's statements. There are two reasons: the AAIB can compel a witness to answer, so there is no 'no comment', and there was no evidence that Mr Hill was cautioned before the AAIB interview. Also, as Singh J points out, the police are free to interview Mr Hill themselves and have done so.
Paras 46 to 50 explain why the Court is ordering disclosure of the cockpit video to the police. The reason given is that where, as here, it seems that the videos were being made for commercial rather than safety monitoring purposes the Court doubts that its order will deter pilots from making such recordings.
Paras 51 to 54 explain why the court is not ordering disclosure of expert investigations. The reason given is that such reports will be published as annexes to the AAIB report in due course and the police are in any event free to commission their own analyses.
Paras 55 and 56 summarise the outcome. Note that the disclosed videos are ordered to be made available only to the Sussex Police, the CPS if necessary, and Mr Hill and his lawyers (whom I assume have probably got copies already, but this is always good practice.)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Shoreham disaster: Regulator throws out suggested safety measures (From The Argus)
THE families of the victims of the Shoreham Airshow disaster will fight to see safety measures introduced after the regulator rejected almost half the recommendations made. A lawyer representing relatives of the 11 men who died on August 22, 2015, said they will continue to campaign to see safety rules introduced to prevent another tragedy.
The news comes as The Argus can exclusively reveal the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), rejected nine out of 21 safety recommendations proposed by the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) in the wake of the crash.........
An AAIB report said the CAA had not adequately addressed 10 of its safety recommendations having rejected nine and is yet to complete another.
The regulator rejected advice on the distance between crowds and flying displays, requests to force organisers to demand a break-down of manoeuvres before a pilot takes to the sky, stricter risk assessment rules and changes to the way flying permits are issued. The CAA argued some rules already in place adequately addressed the concerns and in other cases said the responsibility lied with airshow organisers instead.
Five recommendations were adequately addressed and the regulator went some way to act on four more but “further action” was required. One of the recommendations was superceded by others so was no longer necessary, the AAIB said.
The body can only recommend the changes and does not have the power to force them to be introduced........
A CAA spokesman said it was “inappropriate” to comment in more detail while an investigation was ongoing but said it was common for the status of recommendations to change before a final report is published. He added: “We continue to work with the AAIB.”........
THE families of the victims of the Shoreham Airshow disaster will fight to see safety measures introduced after the regulator rejected almost half the recommendations made. A lawyer representing relatives of the 11 men who died on August 22, 2015, said they will continue to campaign to see safety rules introduced to prevent another tragedy.
The news comes as The Argus can exclusively reveal the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), rejected nine out of 21 safety recommendations proposed by the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) in the wake of the crash.........
An AAIB report said the CAA had not adequately addressed 10 of its safety recommendations having rejected nine and is yet to complete another.
The regulator rejected advice on the distance between crowds and flying displays, requests to force organisers to demand a break-down of manoeuvres before a pilot takes to the sky, stricter risk assessment rules and changes to the way flying permits are issued. The CAA argued some rules already in place adequately addressed the concerns and in other cases said the responsibility lied with airshow organisers instead.
Five recommendations were adequately addressed and the regulator went some way to act on four more but “further action” was required. One of the recommendations was superceded by others so was no longer necessary, the AAIB said.
The body can only recommend the changes and does not have the power to force them to be introduced........
A CAA spokesman said it was “inappropriate” to comment in more detail while an investigation was ongoing but said it was common for the status of recommendations to change before a final report is published. He added: “We continue to work with the AAIB.”........
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Anybody been contacted by the local Police to explain what they meant in a PPrune post/opinion expressed regarding this accident?
I have and I don't mind helping but interesting that the Police are still "investigating".
I have and I don't mind helping but interesting that the Police are still "investigating".
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Seriously?...
I received a PM from 'PPRune Towers' which relayed a 'need' from a DC of Sussex Police to speak about comments I made on PPRuNe concerning aspects of Hunter flying which I made shortly after Andy Hill's accident at Shoreham.
I have yet to decide whether or not to reply.
However, if PPRuNe posters are being approached in this manner 18 months after posting their comments, this might well spell the death knell of the forum.
Particularly when, as was reported last year:
Would any pilot really wish to offer information which might support such a case against a fellow aviator? Somehow I doubt it and I consider that 'PPRuNe Towers' should have made this abundantly clear to Sussex Police. I haven't flown a Hunter for 40 years and if reminiscences posted on a Rumour Network are now being examined in such a manner, it's highly probable that there won't be many such posts in future....
So why didn't you make that point, eh Rob?
I have yet to decide whether or not to reply.
However, if PPRuNe posters are being approached in this manner 18 months after posting their comments, this might well spell the death knell of the forum.
Particularly when, as was reported last year:
A Sussex Police spokesman said: “Detectives investigating the circumstances of the crash of a Hunter fighter jet at Shoreham in August 2015, which killed 11 people, have confirmed that a 52-year-old man was notified in December that he is being investigated for possible endangerment pursuant to Article 138 Air Navigation Order 2009 and also manslaughter by gross negligence.”
So why didn't you make that point, eh Rob?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Totally agree. It also sounds like those they have approached officially have refused to cooperate so they are reduced to trawling the web.... What a way to attempt to build a case.
As I have always said the AAIB are the ones that should be investigating air crashes and not a bunch of plods that have no specialised skills in the field, that alone rests with the AAIB.
..
As I have always said the AAIB are the ones that should be investigating air crashes and not a bunch of plods that have no specialised skills in the field, that alone rests with the AAIB.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 2nd Feb 2017 at 21:55.