Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

[airpolice]

JFZ90, Post 962 on Page 49 of this thread is where you ought to start reading.

[JFZ90]

thanks for the pointers.

i won't comment further but i think i can see where this is going.

[Tankertrashnav]

On a lighter note - BBC news still talking about "looping the loop"

[Reheat On]

so ...

It would appear that in future each display will carry much a need for more planning [both cost and skill + time implications] for both the organisers and the pilots, and likely every display will have to be individually authorised based upon displays being adjusted for the local conditions.

Blanket season DAs look like being a thing of the past

Is it me of have the limits quietly been pushed over time and the inevitable accident waiting to happen has .. er .. happened.

As an ex handler of the control column I find myself thinking what happened to plenty of power, maintaining energy and gate heights?

I attended many displays last year [including Sh.] and found myself shockingly wondering if anyone actually believed it could all go horribly wrong any more?

The illusion of of invincibility usually carries a price.

Ho hum. Busy times for some.

[Flying Lawyer]

TC

I don't think anyone in the CAA needs to fall on their sword.
Learn from the experience, introduce necessary changes and move forward.

Always remember (hope FL isn't listening!), there are only two people who rule this world as we know it: Lawyers and accountants.

In this context, there's force in what you say. We live in a litigious world.
Although the public is bombarded by solicitors' firms and their agents with 'No win, no fee' ads encouraging personal injury claims following any sort of accident, many people need no encouragement to try to find someone to sue and obtain compensation. The blame/compensation culture is widespread.

I noticed that some solicitors firms were very quick to ensure that their services were publicised (indirectly advertised) in the media yesterday. One was so quick to do so that he described the recommendations as being made by the CAA.
Business is business, I suppose.


LOMCEVAK
Thank you for answering my question.

[Pontius Navigator]

Quite a few years ago, back in the 80s, I saw a very nifty graphic of shall we say a display sequence (it wasn't) with the flight path of the aircraft shown by a ribbon. Where the aircraft banked and turned this was shown by a change in ribbon presentation.

This graphic developed from radar tracking was set against an outline area map.

It should be possible to create a display graphic for a given display and then superimpose it on a particular display site. Where the flight path infringes avoidance areas then clearly there is a risk that may be avoided or mitigated.

In the first instance air show organisers could provide their base plan to display teams. In the second display teams could return the combined graphic demonstrating their proposal for a low risk display.

That software was around over 30 years ago; it should be possible to introduce it for the 2017 season.

[kwh]

Never mind radar, these days when a smartphone has multi- axis inertial tracking and GPS built in, it should be perfectly possible to get the necessary 3D display data on the display routine from a device in the display pilot's pocket (maybe even literally from a smartphone app).

[PhilipG]

Flying Lawyer my point in post 1392 was that I would not like to be sitting on the board of the CAA at the moment, particularly as a non exec.

If we are agreed that the role of a non exec is basically corporate governance, as far as I understand they have not asked the question "Are our systems as regards air show regulation fit for purpose?"

I make this comment as there is no reference in the AAIB report of any changes having been made to CAA procedures, the AAIB report does suggest a number of changes are at least desirable.

It could thus be construed that as exhibited, the CAA at least in this part of its operations is not a learning organisation and the Board was quite happy with the arrangements that were in place, not a view I would like to try and support.

The drafting of the final CAA report may well be an interesting exercise.

[Wetstart Dryrun]

I think a pilot doing a demo is mainly concentrating on the display line and crowd centre. Maybe overlaying a 'normal' plotted path might give overflight warnings, but avoidances are likely to break the rhythm of a well rehearsed performance (?)

Avoiding populated area overflights might give compliance with the 'good taste' aspects of a safe display, but accidents diverge from the planned flight path. A catastrophic birdstrike could put the column of greasy smoke anywhere. An FCU/linkage failure would stop the plan in its tracks and mandate a direct dart back towards the field.

i think most car accidents happen within a mile of home. Most air display accidents (very very few) happen near an airfield and big crowds and jammed roads... Over the sea displays would plaice an unacceptible risk on fish stocks.

[Flying Lawyer]

PhilipG

Flying Lawyer my point in post 1392 was that I would not like to be sitting on the board of the CAA at the moment, particularly as a non exec.

I understood your point.
I don't share your view.

I make this comment as there is no reference in the AAIB report of any changes having been made to CAA procedures,

I would not expect to see them in the SB. If you are interested in learning about the changes the CAA has already made, you will need to look at the CAA website. The most recent changes were published on line about a week before the SB was issued.
The next batch of changes is likely to be published next month.
Information concerning the ongoing review is also available.

the AAIB report does suggest a number of changes are at least desirable.

I agree some are desirable.
Others are not practical and/or not proportionate, in my view.

It could thus be construed that as exhibited, the CAA at least in this part of its operations is not a learning organisation and the Board was quite happy with the arrangements that were in place, not a view I would like to try and support.

Your suggestion is based upon a false premise: See above re changes already made.
I would be content to defend the CAA's pre and post Shoreham stance.
As I said earlier, I don't share the shock/outrage expressed by some. (I explained some of my reasons.)

Whilst no-one could fail to have great sympathy for the deceased and their families, the proper way forward lies in an unemotional dispassionate assessment of what changes to the pre Shoreham system need to be made to reduce future risk(s). Short of prohibiting air shows, zero risk is not attainable.

I disagree with some aspects of the CAA's ongoing post Shoreham review, primarily constitution and process, but that is a separate issue.

[andrewn]

FL - appreciate your well posed responses.

Simplistically, is it not the case that the regulator and governing body (CAA) failed to react to the changing nature of air displays in the UK?

I'm not a pilot, but I have attended many displays across the globe over the last 35yrs, and this kind of occurence was more a matter of when not if.

For example, as recently as the Gnat accident at Oulton Park (which I witnessed), there was opportunity to "call time" on the lax regulations that governed displays by privately owned vintage high performance jets at UK displays.

Honestly, who here could ever be comfortable with high performance, swept wing, ex-mil jets being flown at public displays in high energy manoeuvres, by part-time FJ pilots with low type experience, low currency, sometimes in formations, flying un-briefed routines in sometimes marginal weather at unsuitable venues?

[Tourist]

"Honestly, who here could ever be comfortable with high performance, swept wing, ex-mil jets being flown at public displays in high energy manoeuvres, by part-time FJ pilots with low type experience, low currency, sometimes in formations, flying un-briefed routines in sometimes marginal weather at unsuitable venues?"

Me!
It ranks so low on the actual rather than perceived risk register of life that I would be perfectly happy to have them continue in fact I will be upset if they stop.
Life is all about risk vs reward, and to be risk free life stops being worth living.

[Thomas coupling]

Tourist,
this is all of our own making, though.
We live in a litigious society probably brought on by the americans, I suspect where ambulance chasers and over zealous lawyers are keen to give victims 'free' money.
Where there is an incident, there is money, so the regulastors are forced to regulate further to avoid another claim from a similar incident.
Look at pot holes in the road, coffee served which is too hot, driving in the middle lane of the motorway, using goggles to play conkers in the playground. And this is low level stuff.
This airshow incident is the first of several 'tree shakes' in the airshow industry and it is the lawyers and no-one else who are causing all this back lash.
Society will regulate risk out of existence if it is allowed to, mark my words.

I speak to very many people in this industry, it is a small, closed shop network predominently consisting of olds and bolds and these people never worried about risk, it was not in their vocabulary. But now they live in a society where exclamation marks are not to be taught in classrooms anymore for fear of upsetting someone !!!!!!!!

It will NEVER be the same again, the challenge is, can it adapt to maintain its attraction?

[LOMCEVAK]

mtoroshanga,

Re #1338, 100 gal tanks on the inboards pylons, which is what WV372 had, is my preferred configuration for displaying a Hunter because you have more forward stick authority for negative g manoeuvres (slow rolls, inverted passes etc) than in a totally clean aircraft. There are no detrimental flying qualities aspects at all and the limits are the same with and without these tanks. With respect to whether or not they contain fuel, again there are no differences in the limits so it is just an all up mass concern.

[Sir George Cayley]

As a youngster, plane spotter and total aviation person, going to airshows was a big part of my hobby. Lost count of how many both here and abroad but not of the fatal and non-fatal crashes I've witnessed.

I was an avid collector of air show brochures, display team hand-outs and if lucky display pilots notes. Amazing what you could get if you just asked.

Sadly it all went a few years ago bar a couple of precious mementos. But, I recall many notes describing in advance the display routine including commentators notes so they could direct the crowd's attention to photo opportunities.

The Rothmans displays were always the same, so too the Sky Hawks aerial ballet to Pink Floyd. More importantly I remember Adrian Gjertson's red Hunter routine and other FJs being scripted. That's not to say there weren't occasions when things changed mid-display but the notion all FJ displays were assembled from a menu of possible manoeuvres doesn't fit with my recollection.

I've only aerobatted light a/c but always set off with a planned sequence. Aresti gave a notation to help us pilots with that.

CAA vs BADA/Guild of seems inevitable and planting something in the Times looks like a strategic move especially just ahead of the AAIB bulletin.

SGC

[Basil]

Life is all about risk vs reward, and to be risk free life stops being worth living.

A valid point for those of us who have placed ourselves in harms way but not so for uninvolved people on a public highway.

[Pittsextra]

This has nothing to do with risk v reward, dumbing things down, lawyers, society being risk adverse, the media... choose your own sound bite. Nor for that matter being over emotive or outraged.

What has happened here is just depressing because it is becoming increasingly apparent that actually it wasn't for the lack of awareness of risk and there was already in existence actual regulation that could have applied or the very obvious intent of what should have been best practice.

Many involved in this process - including the regulator - have just strayed from professionally managed risk toward a point on a line that ultimately leads to getting away with uncontrolled recklessness. You can put the marker however far down that line you like but ultimately this time it led to people being killed as a direct result of a combination of inability to manage identified risk, apply and enforce current regulation and maintain a rigorous process and culture of safety that would be consistent with any other aviation activity.

An insight to the CAA's mindset was given at a recent meeting relevant to this type of activity. The very senior CAA representative was asked a question about how he should manage risk effectively at his airshow. His concern was that some risks were not always under his control - and he cited the situation where during the display days a host of local public residents set-up shop and opened their land to spectators and for the purposes of car parking, food stalls, etc.

Could the CAA give him some guidance? A reasonable question and one might think a sensible one to ask given recent events. You know what the response was?

The CAA guy laughed and said "you'd better speak to your lawyers".....

A grin and a flippant remark to allow him to move on and dodge any personal insight, activity or heaven forbid responsibility. That is the reality of the people who are the custodians of what we love and do.

[Basil]

The CAA guy laughed and said "you'd better speak to your lawyers".....

A fair response to people who were making a profit from, but not contributing to, a commercial venture.
Had he given them official advice, other than to say "Don't", he could then be held responsible for part of their operation.

[Out Of Trim]

How can an Airshow Organsation be held responsible for the General Public congregating in areas outside of the 'Airshow"? They may be aware of the possibility but, they do not have any power to have them moved. Those persons watching from an uncontrolled vantage point do so at their own risk.

Perhaps in the case of Shoreham, the Local Authorities should have closed the A27 to traffic during the Airshow; much like various roads are closed during Road Cycling events.

I agree, that the Display Routines should be known and approved prior to the Airshow and monitored closely by suitably qualified staff. Obvious risk needs to be mitigated but, can never be 100% safe. Life isn't like that. Things can go wrong and end up in an accident; no matter what you do.

[Wander00]

OOT-good point. Roads get closed for cycle events, running events, why not airshows (and cycling events are an absolute intrusion and PIA in the New Forest)