Death of the Airshow?
My concern would be the 'one man bands' who own/operate a single/small operations. A proper SMS requires a number of honest inputs, and the outputs can drive expensive solutions. It might be the final straw for some.....
Like anything else, SMS via the SRA/SRM/SIRA process can be manipulated to arrive at a desired outcome, yet stil show compliance to regulators. It was hard at my airline where a small group of wise man held the reins and moved flight operations by decree. SMS must be accompanied by changes in the company structure as well to avoid man law driving the outcome, such as a safety department that's the equal of others.
All in all, I like SMS, if only because it does away with the old boy system.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 78
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there anyone in the CAA dealing with this matter that is 1) a Current Pilot of Display Aircraft Either Jet or Piston?2)OR an Ex Military Pilot who has flown either one or the other above?3)Assuming Rod Dean has now retired,and of course Barry Tempest has long retired,there must be Ex Service Pilots in various CAA Departments that should be dealing with this.It seems to me that knee jerk reactions from non pilot people in the CAA are very much the reasons that the Air Displays that Jo Public have for a long time been so enthusiastic about,are about to be consigned to the Bin.Once there can never been resurrected.It is far easier to just say "NO" to get rid of the problem, than spend time and more money to get a Team of Expensive Advisers to move more and more paperwork,which DFDs and Lawyers must wade through plus,Health and Safety issues,which eventually will rule them out on pure cost grounds anyway!!!A very grim future and if you are an Operator or Owner/Driver of a Civvy Jet then it has to be a ruddy costly nightmare!!
After 9/11, someone said, 'Never let a crisis go to waste', and a whole raft of hitherto impossible to justify, draconian measures, including the inexplicable occupation of a foreign country, became a reality.
Many of these restrictions if they had been in force at the time.would have done little, if anything to prevent the events of that day,
There is something of that same concept here, in that the Hunter accident at Shoreham has enabled people to dust off and propose many already held ideas for even more heavy handed regulation/cost, that would, most likely, have made not a scrap of difference to this accident. (The specific cause of which is still unknown.)
Until Shoreham 2015 not a single person, other than those associated with the event, as either participants, or spectators, has ever been killed, in the entire history of airshows in the UK.
I believe we may well be attempting to eliminate the risk of a 'once in 100 years' event, by decimating the UK Airshow industry.
MJ
Many of these restrictions if they had been in force at the time.would have done little, if anything to prevent the events of that day,
There is something of that same concept here, in that the Hunter accident at Shoreham has enabled people to dust off and propose many already held ideas for even more heavy handed regulation/cost, that would, most likely, have made not a scrap of difference to this accident. (The specific cause of which is still unknown.)
Until Shoreham 2015 not a single person, other than those associated with the event, as either participants, or spectators, has ever been killed, in the entire history of airshows in the UK.
I believe we may well be attempting to eliminate the risk of a 'once in 100 years' event, by decimating the UK Airshow industry.
MJ
How many people sadly killed on the roads each year, not seen a regime suggested that would ban driving. Clearly a review is necessary which might lead to some changes, but the CAA approach seems to have all the look of babies and bathwater
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
NutLooseI'm not in a position to comment about engineers specifically but I wholeheartedly support the CAA moving further towards a safety management system which gives operators/organisations power to make responsible decisions in order to ensure an acceptable level of safety. That approach includes removing regulations where possible, regulating only where necessary, regulating proportionately and delegating where appropriate. Heavy-handed regulation often amounts to using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.
Transport Canada was one of the earliest regulators, perhaps the first (1999), to start moving towards a Safety Management System approach, asking individuals, companies and organisations to put systems in place to identify, assess and mitigate risks, and to analyse whether they are meeting their safety goals and continuously improving safety performance. ie To be proactive.
As far as I'm aware, it has not been interpreted as "shifting responsibility' in a negative sense but widely welcomed and preferred to the previous 'traditional' approach to regulation.
It's possible that attitudes have changed since but my impression is based upon 10 days in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in 2013 discussing flight safety issues and associated regulation with a wide variety of very different types of operators and sizes ranging from small GA to a regional airline and also an airshow organiser, as well as meetings at Transport Canada (with the Director General of Civil Aviation), the Transportation Safety Board (two members of the Board and several senior investigators) and ending with a meeting with the then Secretary General and two heads of relevant departments at ICAO.
The SMS method appears to work. Canada has one of the most successful and safest civil aviation systems in the world.
Transport Canada was one of the earliest regulators, perhaps the first (1999), to start moving towards a Safety Management System approach, asking individuals, companies and organisations to put systems in place to identify, assess and mitigate risks, and to analyse whether they are meeting their safety goals and continuously improving safety performance. ie To be proactive.
As far as I'm aware, it has not been interpreted as "shifting responsibility' in a negative sense but widely welcomed and preferred to the previous 'traditional' approach to regulation.
It's possible that attitudes have changed since but my impression is based upon 10 days in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in 2013 discussing flight safety issues and associated regulation with a wide variety of very different types of operators and sizes ranging from small GA to a regional airline and also an airshow organiser, as well as meetings at Transport Canada (with the Director General of Civil Aviation), the Transportation Safety Board (two members of the Board and several senior investigators) and ending with a meeting with the then Secretary General and two heads of relevant departments at ICAO.
The SMS method appears to work. Canada has one of the most successful and safest civil aviation systems in the world.
Through all of this and from what I have read from the AAIB reports so far on the Shoreham disaster, a lot of emphasis is being foisted on the likes of seat cartridge lives and the maintenance schedules, neither which I doubt had anything to do with the incident, but that will be seen when the final report comes out.
However maintenance systems failings are already being compounded by the CAA, under the previous system the maintenance was carried out IAW the manufacturers maintenance manuals and they were the basis that everyone had to adhere too, that has changed.
Now as an example of what I mean, Cessna worried about ageing aircraft began purchasing high houred examples of their product and strip them down, they would then identify problem areas to be addressed and issued Special Inspections called SIDS, these started with their twin 400 series and permeated down the 300 and 200 ranges, all being required by the CAA to be embodied. When the 100 series SIDS came out the CAA took the unusual steps in not making them mandatory and allowing individual companies to determine if they complied with them.
This then set a strange precedent, because in EASA which was brought about to create a level playing field it was left up to individual countries authorities to decide if they mandated them or not. Thus in my eyes obliterating the whole reasoning behind EASA.
Cessna then introduced into the 100 series maintenance manuals the SIDS and when querying this with the CAA I was informed only items in section 4 were mandatory, but as Cessna wrote the manuals prior to the ATA 100 system, their limits are in section 2... I was then told you could ignore those parts, and that in my eyes is where the system collapsed, prior to he changes where the book had to be followed to the letter, by saying parts could be ignored opened up the whole manual to individual interpretation as to what is required or not.
I was also told unofficially that Cessna will not rewrite the manuals as that then brings them back into the realms of product liability again for another 10 years in the USA, whether that is correct I do not know, but it sounds reasonable
Pittsextra,
Re your #51. A DA in Category A which covers the Pitts does not read across to Category G for the Hunter. Therefore, even if you had a ATRE for the Hunter you could not display it. In fact, in Category G an initial issue DA must be made for each type and so a DA for the Hunter would not cover, say, the Gnat.
Rgds
L
Re your #51. A DA in Category A which covers the Pitts does not read across to Category G for the Hunter. Therefore, even if you had a ATRE for the Hunter you could not display it. In fact, in Category G an initial issue DA must be made for each type and so a DA for the Hunter would not cover, say, the Gnat.
Rgds
L
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger:
The Biggin Hill A-26 comes to mind: "21 September 1980 a Douglas B-26 Invader (registered N3710G) crashed during an air display. The aircraft was attempting to carry out a climbing roll in front of the crowd when the nose dropped sharply, and the aircraft continued rolling until it dropped vertically into a valley. The pilot and six passengers were killed." It barely missed a group of spectators and a row of houses, and one of the passengers was a child. So it could have been a lot worse.
It is also worth saying that whilst Shoreham was the first fatality of uninvolved third parties, you could say the UK has been very lucky in the last 63 years. Shoreham was not the only accident in the last few years.
PPRT,
The A-26 was a non-aerobatic aircraft. Passengers were being carried in contravention of the regulations, some of who, I believe, were not strapped in and which may have been a contributory factor. Such flagrant disregard for the rules cannot be considered as indicative of a dormant problem with the existing operating framework of UK airshows.
About a month before that accident I was taxiing out to take off when the same pilot in the same aircraft did a departure flypast at another airshow with some bank applied and his wingtip was VERY low over my canopy; I genuinely did think that he was going to hit me.
The A-26 was a non-aerobatic aircraft. Passengers were being carried in contravention of the regulations, some of who, I believe, were not strapped in and which may have been a contributory factor. Such flagrant disregard for the rules cannot be considered as indicative of a dormant problem with the existing operating framework of UK airshows.
About a month before that accident I was taxiing out to take off when the same pilot in the same aircraft did a departure flypast at another airshow with some bank applied and his wingtip was VERY low over my canopy; I genuinely did think that he was going to hit me.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MachJump:
Regardless of whether the changes prevent civilian operation of bang seat equipped aircraft in the future, the investigation so far has surely prevented the situation where a seat is flown with life expired cartridges.
Many of these restrictions if they had been in force at the time.would have done little, if anything to prevent the events of that day,
There is something of that same concept here, in that the Hunter accident at Shoreham has enabled people to dust off and propose many already held ideas for even more heavy handed regulation/cost, that would, most likely, have made not a scrap of difference to this accident. (The specific cause of which is still unknown.)
There is something of that same concept here, in that the Hunter accident at Shoreham has enabled people to dust off and propose many already held ideas for even more heavy handed regulation/cost, that would, most likely, have made not a scrap of difference to this accident. (The specific cause of which is still unknown.)
Regardless of whether the changes prevent civilian operation of bang seat equipped aircraft in the future, the investigation so far has surely prevented the situation where a seat is flown with life expired cartridges.
The problem with the supply of seat cartridges for vintage jets has been well known for many years, and the continued use of expired cartridges until replacements could be obtained subjected to the professional judgment/risk assessment of the engineers and pilots involved. I know. I was one of them.
The point is, that the risk of operating with expired cartridges, however small that may be,(and I believe it to be very small) is borne entirely by the occupants, and it should not be a factor when assessing the risk to the public.
MJ
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach Jump:
Logical.
The point is, that the risk of operating with expired cartridges, however small that may be,(and I believe it to be very small) is borne entirely by the occupants, and it should not be a factor when assessing the risk to the public.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Unless, of course, the aircraft falls onto 'spectators'.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G-CPTN. Unless, of course, the aircraft falls onto 'spectators'.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOMCEVAK
To be fair to DB, that regulation wasn't introduced until much later.
The HAA included a 'no passengers' rule in its voluntary code circa 1984, wrongly and unnecessarily in some members' opinion including mine but we abided by it. (I still think an adult should have the freedom to accept the risk, such as the risk is.)
Before that, passengers were almost always restricted to other pilots and the volunteers who gave their time to help keep the aircraft flying. I say almost only because a very small minority, including DB on the day the A-26 crashed, sometimes extended that to others.
The HAA rule was subsequently incorporated in the regs.
The above doesn't in any way detract from the valid point you make.
Passengers were being carried in contravention of the regulations
The HAA included a 'no passengers' rule in its voluntary code circa 1984, wrongly and unnecessarily in some members' opinion including mine but we abided by it. (I still think an adult should have the freedom to accept the risk, such as the risk is.)
Before that, passengers were almost always restricted to other pilots and the volunteers who gave their time to help keep the aircraft flying. I say almost only because a very small minority, including DB on the day the A-26 crashed, sometimes extended that to others.
The HAA rule was subsequently incorporated in the regs.
The above doesn't in any way detract from the valid point you make.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
To regulate or not?
I can see that tight regulation can be used to ensure that things are properly done and controlled. However they can also be an excuse not to go further in the line of SMS.
Loose regulation should be a gold standard where an enterprise aims at best practice and regular oversight and review.
How could safety be assured with loose regulation and tight regulation not be used as an excuse not to do something?
Now regarding safe life of components and exceeding these limits in an apparently approved (by the company) way, there would appear to be an issue on whether the safe life may be exceeded and under what circumstances.
As for being a red herring in the case of this crash, it can also, as has been averred in many previous instances, be used to show that other safety systems have not been managed correctly. In other words it is germane to the present investigation.
Finally, regarding the grounding of all Hunter jets, until the report states there was no technical issue, is there a real case for lifting that restriction?
Nutloose said: While it all seems fine in principal, one of my major concerns from all of this is without a clear cut, laid down and cast in stone set of requirements for airworthiness, the system is open to abuse where maintenance standards in smaller companies can become driven by pure financial reasons and not safety
While FL said (apologies if I misunderstood) was to reduce prescriptive regulation.
While FL said (apologies if I misunderstood) was to reduce prescriptive regulation.
Loose regulation should be a gold standard where an enterprise aims at best practice and regular oversight and review.
How could safety be assured with loose regulation and tight regulation not be used as an excuse not to do something?
Now regarding safe life of components and exceeding these limits in an apparently approved (by the company) way, there would appear to be an issue on whether the safe life may be exceeded and under what circumstances.
As for being a red herring in the case of this crash, it can also, as has been averred in many previous instances, be used to show that other safety systems have not been managed correctly. In other words it is germane to the present investigation.
Finally, regarding the grounding of all Hunter jets, until the report states there was no technical issue, is there a real case for lifting that restriction?
RIAT and Farnborough
Thankfully Yeovilton Air Day, RIAT and Farnborugh going ahead though w.r.t flying displays wondering how badly will they be affected at these venues so to speak.
cheers
cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 13th Feb 2016 at 13:32.
In the context of the surrounding urban area, how can Farnborough get approval, but questions be raised about predominantly rural sites like Duxford. Just a thought