Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Surely, these jets should be flown by professionals in a BBMF-type 'Squadron' properly funded so that currency, engineering etc are not a problem.
Sadly, the Vintage Pair incidents back in the day prove even this isn't foolproof.
MOD aren't going to fund vintage jets - period.
And its all possibly a moot point post-Shoreham. I doubt we'll be seeing too many civvie owned/operated vintage jets flying again (and the Hunter grounding might never be lifted by CAA?) as I think the insurance premiums will likely go through the roof, and make it virtually operationally cost prohibitive...aside from any legislation or rule changes that are put in place.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"BBMF style squadron..." Really? Even if there was the remotest chance of that happening, do you suppose the aircraft would suddenly become "crash-proof"? Both the RAF Vintage Pair and the RNHF (Firefly) suffered fatal display crashes. And does this tragedy really support the notion that the CAA is unfit to regulate this area? Do then, previous display crashes and near-crashes (Fairford Typhoon 2005?)of service aircraft "prove" the unfitness of the RAF to regulate?
Last edited by ShotOne; 7th Feb 2017 at 08:02.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The VTTS maybe the best example of a professional organization properly funded with current-on- type aircrew for vintage military aircraft. That it was publicly funded and largely dependent on display fees and a hugely expensive administration staff was its ultimate failure (not to mention engines).
To scale up such an operation for multiple types would be a massive undertaking as outside the display season your professional pilots would still need paying.
To scale up such an operation for multiple types would be a massive undertaking as outside the display season your professional pilots would still need paying.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I've previously posted my views concerning this accident, which I maintain.
That said, after a discussion with other ex-aviators in my pub last evening, nobody was able to offer an explanation as to what processes are outstanding and any relative timescales. We've all read the AAIB and CAA reports highlighted in the forum, and opinions concerning police activity; but are at a loss with respect to further procedures that are/might be necessary to bring about a conclusion.
Can anybody provide us with some clarity?
Many thanks.
That said, after a discussion with other ex-aviators in my pub last evening, nobody was able to offer an explanation as to what processes are outstanding and any relative timescales. We've all read the AAIB and CAA reports highlighted in the forum, and opinions concerning police activity; but are at a loss with respect to further procedures that are/might be necessary to bring about a conclusion.
Can anybody provide us with some clarity?
Many thanks.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,599
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Jindabyne, this reason was given for the further delay on 30th November:
Shoreham Airshow tragedy report delayed - Shoreham Herald
"The final report into the Shoreham air crash will not be published before Christmas as hoped, a spokesperson from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch has confirmed. On the first anniversary of the crash in August, it was announced that the final report would be delivered before Christmas, confirmed the spokesperson.
"But due to one party being consulted having now asked for an extension, the report will not be published until after Christmas..."
"But due to one party being consulted having now asked for an extension, the report will not be published until after Christmas..."
As I implied earlier, maybe the way to show these aircraft is a resticted manoeuvre display. - or static.
I can nod sagely at all the plans for increasing currency/recency for more advanced demos, but for a hunter that would be start, taxi t/o, climb to 5000ft invert for loose article, 5 min aeros at 150 lb/min, cct land taxi back - 1500lb of motion lotion plus airfield fees. I guess too dear for 3 times a week practice, too demanding of service time
Shuttleworth seem to manage without combat ready Fokker Triplane pilots.
Can somebody confirm the Shoreham accident (yes, I talk about it) was the first manoeuvre? So off a controlled run-in, plenty of speed, presumably cool and collected pilot, a pull-up resulted in a crash?
...not sure you can practise for that.
I can nod sagely at all the plans for increasing currency/recency for more advanced demos, but for a hunter that would be start, taxi t/o, climb to 5000ft invert for loose article, 5 min aeros at 150 lb/min, cct land taxi back - 1500lb of motion lotion plus airfield fees. I guess too dear for 3 times a week practice, too demanding of service time
Shuttleworth seem to manage without combat ready Fokker Triplane pilots.
Can somebody confirm the Shoreham accident (yes, I talk about it) was the first manoeuvre? So off a controlled run-in, plenty of speed, presumably cool and collected pilot, a pull-up resulted in a crash?
...not sure you can practise for that.
It would seem like there's a lot of hand wringing going on behind closed doors on how to deal with the outcome of the AAIB investigation?
The owner of the aircraft would seem to have admitted 'some liability' according to newspaper reports?
That MAY indicate a particular conclusion to the inquiry which means that some sort of legal proceedings may be in the offing.
If so, how this is all announced to the World in general would potentially affect any legal proceedings?
The owner of the aircraft would seem to have admitted 'some liability' according to newspaper reports?
That MAY indicate a particular conclusion to the inquiry which means that some sort of legal proceedings may be in the offing.
If so, how this is all announced to the World in general would potentially affect any legal proceedings?
Wetstart,
The Fokker Triplane issue is simple. Small lightweight aircraft are mostly a danger to themselves. Heavy and fast aircraft become a great danger to others, in direct proportion to their weight and at the square of their speed.
Additionally, the complexity and low tolerance of system malfunctions of vintage mil jets counts against them when it comes to private operation. Just my opinion.
OAP
The Fokker Triplane issue is simple. Small lightweight aircraft are mostly a danger to themselves. Heavy and fast aircraft become a great danger to others, in direct proportion to their weight and at the square of their speed.
Additionally, the complexity and low tolerance of system malfunctions of vintage mil jets counts against them when it comes to private operation. Just my opinion.OAP
OAP,
Thanks. I was citing Shuttleworth ref minimal hours, no 2-seaters, yet fairly benign manoeuvres, strict weather limits and experienced pilots facilitate safe displays.
You don't have to pull the wings off to please the public.
Thanks. I was citing Shuttleworth ref minimal hours, no 2-seaters, yet fairly benign manoeuvres, strict weather limits and experienced pilots facilitate safe displays.
You don't have to pull the wings off to please the public.
Harry Heathrow:-
..and as regard to the pilots currency that is precisely what was not required here. Those granting the privileges for this pilot DA's would/could have known absolutely what his currency was. So at some point beyond the accident you can take two paths.
Either suggest that the pilot was perfectly qualified to perform at Shoreham and then you defend the process that put him in that position, OR you capitulate and throw much of the process in the bin. The second option might be valid but it surely comes with intelligent reasoning for the revised thinking and why that thinking hadn't taken place before. (and clearly simply saying "we now have multiple fatalities" doesn't say much for the risk management).
I'm not sure that throwing a few hundred hours extra at things really adds much value given we were talking a quarter clover and a pilot who not only has performed the same display in the same aircraft previously but has some years of success in competition aerobatics which go way way beyond a simple figure being flown at the time.
Unfortunately unless the pilot himself can shed light on the rational on the event then beyond perhaps simply displaying one aircraft per DA, per display season I can't see things being very effective as a solution and I think the hours total alone path seems flawed. Certainly there are other issues around process but how material they have been, well one awaits the final report. Of course should it turn out they have had no influence at all in this accident then the delays around final report publication would point to people's interest in PR.
As ever hindsight is a wonderful thing
Either suggest that the pilot was perfectly qualified to perform at Shoreham and then you defend the process that put him in that position, OR you capitulate and throw much of the process in the bin. The second option might be valid but it surely comes with intelligent reasoning for the revised thinking and why that thinking hadn't taken place before. (and clearly simply saying "we now have multiple fatalities" doesn't say much for the risk management).
I'm not sure that throwing a few hundred hours extra at things really adds much value given we were talking a quarter clover and a pilot who not only has performed the same display in the same aircraft previously but has some years of success in competition aerobatics which go way way beyond a simple figure being flown at the time.
Unfortunately unless the pilot himself can shed light on the rational on the event then beyond perhaps simply displaying one aircraft per DA, per display season I can't see things being very effective as a solution and I think the hours total alone path seems flawed. Certainly there are other issues around process but how material they have been, well one awaits the final report. Of course should it turn out they have had no influence at all in this accident then the delays around final report publication would point to people's interest in PR.
Mr Shot
My "solution" would not stop aircraft from being "crash proof" as you so disdainfully suggest. The RAF, over the years" has suffered many fatal crashes when fully combat ready, current pilots have either made mistakes or some external influence such as the weather (going into cloud at the top of a loop for instance) or aircraft problems have tragically intervened. That did not alter the fact that the system was basically sound and the pilots were combat ready and properly current at both their operational tasks and their display work - for which they had been specially selected.
It occurs to me, as an ex FJ QWI with 2 tours behind me, that the CAA is (was) allowing pilots who are not current to attempt similar displays when some of them should perhaps be either flying something a little less dynamic or even hanging up their kit and joining the audience. My suggestion of a BBMF type Squadron was exactly that - a suggestion. The fact that nobody would fund a few pilots to operate a display Squadron of vintage jets (they may still be in the RAF) does not mean that it's a bad idea - it means that nobody will fund it.
So, my final word is - if you want to fly fast jets carrying out low level displays - do it properly or don't do it at all. Whether the RAF or the CAA is "in charge" is irrelevant.
My "solution" would not stop aircraft from being "crash proof" as you so disdainfully suggest. The RAF, over the years" has suffered many fatal crashes when fully combat ready, current pilots have either made mistakes or some external influence such as the weather (going into cloud at the top of a loop for instance) or aircraft problems have tragically intervened. That did not alter the fact that the system was basically sound and the pilots were combat ready and properly current at both their operational tasks and their display work - for which they had been specially selected.
It occurs to me, as an ex FJ QWI with 2 tours behind me, that the CAA is (was) allowing pilots who are not current to attempt similar displays when some of them should perhaps be either flying something a little less dynamic or even hanging up their kit and joining the audience. My suggestion of a BBMF type Squadron was exactly that - a suggestion. The fact that nobody would fund a few pilots to operate a display Squadron of vintage jets (they may still be in the RAF) does not mean that it's a bad idea - it means that nobody will fund it.
So, my final word is - if you want to fly fast jets carrying out low level displays - do it properly or don't do it at all. Whether the RAF or the CAA is "in charge" is irrelevant.
There was one private Hunter display pilot who seemed to be doing enough flying to maintain a proper level of currency, and was apparently covering his costs too, so it does appear to be possible do do it properly as an amateur. That said, I rather suspect he treated the whole enterprise (including marketing, getting bookings etc) as a full time job rather than a weekend hobby...
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft owner automatically accepts liability and his insurance pays out. However, I would imagine that should there be indication that there were other factors involved, then the insurance company will make a claim on the other 3rd parties insurance policy.
With regard to the consultation, my understanding is that the AAIB complete a Final draft copy which is then sent to each individual (or their representatives) and also any person/s or organisations whose reputation n may be adversely affected by the findings. They then have 28 days to make representation before the finalised report is completed and published.
Therefore, it would appear according to reports in the media that one party has asked for an extension to this timescale presumably to provide additional information or seek further advice.
However, in view of the fact that the prelim inquest hearing is scheduled in March I think the AAIB should now say to the party you have had enough time now. They can always make amendments after, as this has happened before, if it really needs to be done.
With regard to the police investigation I expect the are stuck in limbo too, as they have no further leads to follow until the AAIB report is published as this will contain all the other facts such as expert calculations, condition of aircraft etc that they have not been able to access.
With regard to the consultation, my understanding is that the AAIB complete a Final draft copy which is then sent to each individual (or their representatives) and also any person/s or organisations whose reputation n may be adversely affected by the findings. They then have 28 days to make representation before the finalised report is completed and published.
Therefore, it would appear according to reports in the media that one party has asked for an extension to this timescale presumably to provide additional information or seek further advice.
However, in view of the fact that the prelim inquest hearing is scheduled in March I think the AAIB should now say to the party you have had enough time now. They can always make amendments after, as this has happened before, if it really needs to be done.
With regard to the police investigation I expect the are stuck in limbo too, as they have no further leads to follow until the AAIB report is published as this will contain all the other facts such as expert calculations, condition of aircraft etc that they have not been able to access.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VTTS maybe the best example of a professional organization properly funded with current-on- type aircrew for vintage military aircraft. That it was publicly funded and largely dependent on display fees and a hugely expensive administration staff was its ultimate failure (not to mention engines).
If by 'failure' you are referring to the end of flying, then I'm not sure this stacks up. There were seven possible reasons for the end of flying operations. Funding was one of them, but there was no sign that the funding model would not continue to work (in fact, the proportion of income received from 'trading' as opposed to donations gradually increased). As you will be aware, it was the withdrawal of OEM support that was the actual reason for the 'failure', which no amount of money could fix.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
WBS, the Vulcan is in a shed earning not a penny I understand. That is what I term ultimate failure. Even had it had OEM support it would still have needed further major servicing at cost.
I guess I am flogging a dead horse, but to repeat what I wrote shortly after the accident, I still feel the title of this thread to be inappropriate, suggesting as it does that the loss of the Hunter outweighs the loss of 11 lives. I appreciate that the thread may well have been started before the OP was aware of the consequences of the crash, but perhaps the title could have been amended in the light of events. 'Nuff said.