Andy Hill interviewed

[PhilipG]

Thanks RAFEng,

I had a quick trawl through the CAA website's G-INFO database and it looks to my untrained eyes that there are only about 20 ex military swept wing jets with ejector seats, 15 Hunters already grounded and 6 Gnats, not all of which are flying.

If my numbers are correct, it does seem surprising that the CAA did not have a better handle on what I understand are the most complex aircraft that they issue Permits to Fly to.

[NutLoose]

I wonder if they are all grounded, are any still operated on behalf of the Navy?

[vintage ATCO]

Civil Hunters are grounded, those military ones operated by Hawker Hunter Aviation based at Scampton, are still operating.

Hawker Hunter Aviation |

[MPN11]

As a complete outsider ... that interim AAIB report seems to focus totally on the ejection seat aspects, which might have saved the pilot the severe injuries he encountered [yet miraculously survived] but does nothing to progress the investigation into the deaths on the ground. An empty Hunter would, presumably, have had the same or similar effect.

As to "swept wing" flying, does one assume that a civil JP or whatever poses no similar risk when being displayed? I am more confused than usual.

As others have noted, the CAA seems to have been sleeping peacefully.

[LOMCEVAK]

MPN11,

If aspects related to safety have been uncovered and affect other aircraft types that are currently flying, there is a duty to highlight them as soon as possible whether or not they are causal to the accident under investigation.

There are two separate aspects to consider when looking across different types such as Hunter and JP. The first relates to flying with live or inhibited ejection seats and that is a function of glide approach speed and whether or not it is feasible to forced land off airfield as per a light piston. The second relates to the complexity of a historic type and the robustness of the maintenance manuals.

Rgds

L

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I missed this bit when reading the linked report. Explains why it focuses on areas seemingly extraneous to this particular accident. It is as LOMCEVAK says:

This Special Bulletin is published to highlight findings of the AAIB investigation regarding
ejection seat safety and the maintenance of ex-military jet aircraft, and to assist the Civil
Aviation Authority in its ‘Review of UK Civil Air Displays’ announced on 9 September 2015.
A final report will be published in due course.

As such, it is pretty much irrelevant and sheds no more light on what happened this time.

[APG63]

MPN11,

There is no sinister significance to the fact that this bulletin majors on the escape system. It is simply that the part of the investigation dealing with that equipment has reached a point where conclusions can be drawn and recommendations made. The AAIB does not casually sit on one set of findings just because other areas have not reached that stage. So it is normal to release bulletin at various stages of the investigation. This area was more straightforward than some and is, in some respects more pressing than certain others in that it deals with an area which could have repercussions in current flying activity - groundings notwithstanding.

All of that does not mean that ALL other aspects of the investigation are not progressing. As for your statement,

does nothing to progress the investigation into the deaths on the ground

you are way off the mark and, frankly, out of order. The work must continue in all areas. How would you know that a problem with the escape system hadn't been a contributory factor to the accident until that area had been fully investigated? There are other areas which are currently being worked that may equally disappoint you, or maybe they will prove to be cosequential. We won't know until the work on them is complete.

You seem to think that there is some magic thread in the investigation that could be followed to give you the answers to the questions that you think are most pressing. There is very seldom such a path and you can probably safely think that the bit you're clearly particularly interested in will come at or very near the end. Apart from anything else, the title of this thread and the date it was started may give you a clue as to why your questions cannot yet be answered.


Traffic_is_er_Was,

It is not irrelevant to the investigation as a whole. As I said to MPN, until this part was completed it was unknown if it was a factor. The same will go for the next couple of areas.

[MPN11]

Thanks for those responses, gentlemen. I am enlightened.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by PhilipG

Thanks RAFEng,

I had a quick trawl through the CAA website's G-INFO database and it looks to my untrained eyes that there are only about 20 ex military swept wing jets with ejector seats, 15 Hunters already grounded and 6 Gnats, not all of which are flying.

The Gnats don't have MB seats, so are not affected by the MB decision specifically.....but I would imagine the Sea Vixen, G-CVIX would be, which you didn't include.

[FAStoat]

I seem to remember some time ago Boz Robinson put a civilianised Gnat down in a field with minor injuries,or was it a different incident involving Boz and a Gnat??

[treadigraph]

FAStoat: Gnat at North Weald.

[kaitakbowler]

XR721 Jan. 1966. Fatal outcome thanks to the tree(s), but a landing that was said to be impossible.

ISTR the canopy was prevented from jettisoning by a bolt fitted incorrectly.

PM

[bvcu]

My impression of this bulletin is the basic question of was it 'airworthy' at the time of the accident. This appears to suggest it wasn't as per seat and engine issues. These had been apparent for some time according to the info but the CAA continued to take the money and issue a permit to fly . My impression is this is pointing the finger at the CAA for these issues , not the operator. The ejection seat issue is a bad one in that the CAA has never got to grips with what is a specialised trade in the services so it isn't properly covered in the engineer licencing system , treating it the same as the tiny cartridges fitted in a fire bottle or overwing slide system on an airliner. Don't think this is unique as i have a friend who set up a business doing this in NZ and is travelling worldwide to carry out work as a result of his air force qualifications. Think the lawyers will be rubbing their hands as even though probably no effect on the accident the airworthiness issue is a very basic one.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by bvcu

Think the lawyers will be rubbing their hands

Oh, here we go again! Why should they be? Unless this is later found to have a bearing on the accident, all this does is to highlight shortcomings in a civil aviation niche, which will now be sorted - one way or another.

No need to be too gleeful about potential prosecutions. AAIB does not apportion blame.

[Mandator]

The CAA made it clear in its press release yesterday that from an engine perspective the aircraft was airworthy:

"We have received the AAIB's latest special bulletin from its ongoing investigation into the Shoreham Air Show accident and will study it in detail. We will continue to fully co-operate with the AAIB investigation and provide expertise and advice.

The AAIB Special Bulletin does not contain any information regarding the cause of the Shoreham Air Display accident.

The CAA is continuing its own review of Air Show safety which is due to be published early in the New Year and our thoughts remain with all those affected by this tragic accident.

In relation to the validity of the alternative means of compliance (AMOC) for ongoing maintenance of the aircraft, we have already informed the AAIB that this was in place and was valid at the time of the accident.

Work under the alternative means of compliance was carried out in January 2014 with the next inspection due in January 2016 making the organisation and the aircraft compliant with the Mandatory Permit Directive."

[dsc810]

The lawyers will/may be having a field day as some insurance company will now say as the aircraft should not have been flying in their opinion due to the out of date parts fitted in the seat - we will not by paying.
Whether or not the out of date parts had any bearing on the accident will be immaterial to them.

[The Old Fat One]

^^

Idle bar room speculation. Suddenly lawyers and insurance companies are all villains once more. Childish drivel. FYI for the future, the final decision on whether or not and insurance company pays out, does not rest with the insurance company (unless the beneficiary accepts the rejected claim), it would rest with a law court....on no!! it's them damn villainous lawyers at it again.

[Courtney Mil]

Spot on, TOFO.

There seems to be another sudden rush of people capable of fortelling the outcomes before the AAIB have even completed the information gathering phase of the investigation.

[Cows getting bigger]

I think if there is any legal hand-rubbing to be done, it will centre on the organisation and supervision of air displays.

The latest bulletin highlights an embarrassing issue regarding airworthiness oversight. Perhaps the CAA needs to take a close look at itself and the manner in which it continues to audit. Legal wrangling? I think not, unless there is a definite airworthiness related causal issue still to be found in the pile of twisted metal.

[andrewn]

I think if there is any legal hand-rubbing to be done, it will centre on the organisation and supervision of air displays.

Agreed cows, and I said as such in the original thread. The relevant findings and recommendations will relate to the venue itself and I suspect the granting and maintenance of PDAs, in particular for ex-mil jets in private hands.