Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Old 10th Mar 2019, 16:40
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lechlade, Glos.UK
Posts: 644
A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?
sharpend is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 16:46
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,782
But isn't that how it's supposed to work? As has frequently been stated here and elsewhere, the defence have to prove nothing.
On the face of it most would agree, but as far as I can see it's increasing a grey area. If one looks at the Red Arrows Cunningham case (same QC acting for families in both cases, and not very well in my opinion) it was often asked how on earth the HSE could prove MoD hadn't received the information that would have prevented the accident. But it was never asked to - it just made a series of accusations which were accepted by the Coroner and Judge; despite verbal, written and video evidence proving them outright lies. The HSE has since admitted it made no attempt to review this evidence, but told both Lincs Police and Judge it carried out a full review and deemed it 'irrelevant'. (Both have recently reaffirmed they are content with this). Today, I'm thoroughly dazed and confused by our legal system. There is no consistency at all.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 16:54
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 74
Posts: 5,082
Originally Posted by VerdunLuck View Post
I can certainly vouch for a sudden onset of vertigo with no apparent cause. Last November I got up and attempted to walk to the bathroom; the room then spun crazily quickly resulting in a view of the carpet at close range. There was no warning before and I felt fine up until the moment it started. There is no way I could have controlled an aircraft while it was happening.

...
I had a similar experience at Gatwick last year, having arrived from a long-haul flight ... which I do several times a year without even thinking about it. Left Arrivals for a kerbside cigarette in the Smoking Zone, and suddenly just folded up gracefully to the floor ... my descent being controlled by the OH. It came out of nowhere, and not encountered before or since. SCARY.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 17:42
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by Flying Palm Tree View Post
It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?
To some extent that is addressed by the review, post accident, of the Risk Assessment and associated mitigations. That could have been a mitigation. (Applied by the organisers - not sure how the police and local authority involvement worked) Obviously it wasn't done, I have no idea whether it was considered, nor how difficult it might have been to do then, legally. - the AAIB report doesn't show that level of detail.

The CAA have reviewed and strengthened their Risk Assessment advice, following critique by the HSE (I think) Of course, hindsight is always excellent, so critiquing after the fact is fairly easy...
biscuit74 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 17:50
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1
BV - a bit rich coming from you

Bob

As you are a serving RAF officer and well-regarded regular on PPRuNe, who has passionately defended MFTS at Valley against those that troll you about its alleged failure, you should know better than to spout ill-informed nonsense with regards to an emotive accident that you clearly haven't either read up on - other than from sensationalist press snippets - and a court case you could not have attended due to your dislocated desert location. Considering that families of the deceased will likely be reading this thread, your input is most unhelpful.


JC
JetCrazy is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 17:53
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by Flying Palm Tree View Post
It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?
If temporary traffic lights had been installed, they would not have been where the Hunter came down.

From the accident report:

A change of ground track during the manoeuvre positioned the aircraft further east than planned producing an exit track along the A27 dual carriageway.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 18:09
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by sharpend View Post
A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?
The pilots DA permitted minimum flypast height for Category G aircraft was 100ft with 500ft being the minimum for aerobatics. It was (and still is) permitted to commence a climb into a vertical manoeuvre from 100ft so long as the manoeuvre can be safely completed by the 500ft minimum. This is now clearly defined in CAP1724 in that you should not exceed 30 degrees pitch angle before your minimum aerobatic height and that safe recovery should be assured by your minimum aerobatic height, before you can start relaxing the recovery down to the flypast altitude if necessary.

Bottom line: a smooth pull into a loop from 100ft was not a violation of his DA and should not have been a risk to its safe execution had the aircraft had enough energy to complete the manoeuvre by at least 500ft AGL.

Airshow aerobatics should be flown with necessary margin ie. a looping manoeuvre should not be flown by ‘max performing’ the aircraft. Instead the aircraft should have excess energy in which the pull can be somewhat relaxed, allowing for increased altitude over the top (gate) and thus ample margin on the way back down. These techniques are not ‘taught’ during military flying training or if one was doing competition aerobatics. It is specific to the safe execution of display flying where one is looking to show off the aircraft in an attractive manor. Not displaying ones skill for executing the manouevures or the full capabilities of the aircraft.
Rhymenoceros is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 18:35
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by sharpend View Post
A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?
Sorry, I must not have previously been clear enough...
The fact that the WHOLE manoeuvre was badly flown (for want of a better term - so don't tke this literally), commencing too low and slow suggests to me that the pilot could already have been impaired on the run in. I cannot agree with the frequent assumption that if any impairment was present it must have come on after pull up due to G; indeed it could have started at any time after take off. Therefore, I really don't think we can conclude that AH "deliberately broke the rules".
Also, as I recall it was reported that video from inside the cockpit is/was available to the authorities and might provide evidence we haven't seen, but is/was not for public release.

IF (a big word, I agree) IF he had had a TIA he could still have functioned "mechanically" but incorrectly. For example, to someone sitting next to him he would have appeared completely normal, but to him the world around him wouldn't be making much sense. Such an event can occur without any apparent immediate cause or stimulus, and can last anywhere from a few seconds to, say, 15/20 minutes.
If you had one while driving you might be lucky and find yourself a bit further down the road wondering what the hell just happened in the last few seconds, or you might drive into the back of a truck without reacting to it.
That's what "cognitive impairment" due to a TIA is, and in order to defend against a charge of negligence (or any other charge!) all that is necessary is for the defence to raise a reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove anything - it is up to the prosecution to prove their case.
Bravo Alpha One is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 18:40
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 570
This is the defence/prosecution witnesses for the issue of CI. I missed this earlier.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...eporting-story

And this is an opinion regarding the in cockpit video.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47150079
Treble one is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 19:01
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by beamer View Post
Is it therefore sufficient to say that he made an appalling mistake with tragic circumstances and leave the lawyers to fight another day ?
No, not if you believe his evidence, supported by experts.

When a person is incapacitated, they can't make mistakes.

The notion of Andy Hill effectively passing out during the turn, and carrying on, in the midst of a slow and partial recovery, through the run in, pull and loop, is both attractive and possible.

People who want more bloodshed will say that it's very convenient, the other side will say that as it is possible and has not been disproved, then it has to be accepted.

Let's hope that things now move on, and prosecutions follow for the other "potentially guilty" people who had a hand in this tragedy.





Warren Peace is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 19:16
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 49
Posts: 1,256
Originally Posted by Flying Palm Tree View Post
It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?
Temp traffic lights on a dual carriageway? Would've been carnage even without the Hunter.
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 19:23
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,090
I sincerely hope that other forms of ‘cognitive impairment’ than g-induced cerebral hypoxia were suggested by the defence. Mitigating for that condition is part and parcel of everyday flying in fast jets, and most certainly for displaying them. AH did not set out to kill anyone, but if he failed to complete a positive check of gate height due to that wholly predictable condition and not some transient medical issue then he is surely culpable to some degree. The absence of equivalent charges to ‘death by careless/dangerous driving’ is an interesting point.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 19:40
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 54
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by Flying Palm Tree View Post
It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?
You quite clearly are not familiar with the location. What you suggest is about as practicable as clearing the M25 for every arrival/departure at Heathrow,
dastocks is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 20:03
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,094
HPeacock
Never met an RAF Pilot displaying a FJ who had flown such a paltry number of hours.
To argue the toss about Derry vs Canadian is pure "missing the whole point" pedantry.
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 20:07
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 570
I fully accept that some sort of CI may be possible during flying a high performance jet.

However, on the balance of probability, and given that the pilot hadnt suffered an eposide like this before during flying numerous aerobatic manoeuvres, over many years, makes it seem like a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?
Treble one is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 20:14
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,562
a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?


to be fair, that sounds very like "an accident" does it not?
langleybaston is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 20:25
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 570
Originally Posted by langleybaston View Post
a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?


to be fair, that sounds very like "an accident" does it not?
It does. But the defendent was almost wholly relient on this very precise set of circumstances occuring to prevent a conviction. And on the balance of probability, the chances of this CI occuring at that precise moment....?

Im assuming that this episode of CI was short lived because the pilot was pulling hard to prevent CFIT prior to impact?

Last edited by Treble one; 10th Mar 2019 at 20:53.
Treble one is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 20:39
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
I read this in another place today.

It is worthy of note, that the UK's top fast jet test pilot, with thousands of hours on Hunters, and still current on them, had a "mishap" while he was "proving the escape manoeuvre" that he and those on the ground were lucky to get away with.

This alleged lapse of judgement, occurred during a low height loop with flap, which had a premeditated escape aileron roll just after the apex, at a similar height and speed as the Shoreham accident aircraft. He made a cognitive error and pulled through at max alpha and bottomed out around 200ft. If he had done this during the pressure altitude of that fateful day, it has been suggested that he would not have been here to tell the tale.

Not only does this prove that even the finest pilots suffer HF mistakes, it is alleged that both the AAIB and an individual involved in this purposefully withheld this information, until it was forced out of them by a whistle blower after the pre-trial hearing.

Remember we are all here for the grace of God, and we are only human.
Now, as for the provenance of this claim, I'm keen to see that made public. I'm also keen to see an explanation for it having been suppressed. Like many others on here, I know people who know Andy Hill, in the display circus and in the airline world. Poles apart describes the ways in which he is described by each group.

My own desire is for the truth to emerge. Have the public been denied the opportunity to see Andy Hill get a fair trial? Has it denied the familes the chance to see justice done for the victims?

This new "information" makes it look that way.

Warren Peace is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 21:01
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 478
Warren Peace - the defence was aware of that information and used it in the trial.

As an aside PPRuNe commentators may be interested to know (not in regard to this case as it has now concluded) for the future that the police had trawled through social media aviation sites and had screen shots of PPRuNe threads/ Flyer forums etc etc. Sadly, in cases such as this defence lawyers are no longer paid by the hour for preparation otherwise they would have been paid for reading endless paged of PPRuNe disclosed by the police.

The police had actually contacted some for the "experts" on those threads in the hope that they were, indeed, experts. The police received a wide range of expert opinion ranging from some well informed guesswork through to the positively barking - I kid you not there was one suggestion that the crash had been caused by alien involvement ( and 2015 being 'pre-brexit' the expert was not talking about migrants nor was it written in green ink although I have only seen a black and white photocopy).
Legalapproach is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 21:01
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,262
If I may quote Rhymenoceros to get this back to a nuts and bolts discussion ...
Bottom line: a smooth pull into a loop from 100ft was not a violation of his DA and should not have been a risk to its safe execution had the aircraft had enough energy to complete the manoeuvre by at least 500ft AGL.
The pilot at the controls has to make that assessment on time and on task if the decision to initiate (for whatever reason) was to begin at 100'. (And for planning ahead, build some energy, eh?) Was it rehearsed that way? "Practice the way you are going to play!" Was that adage complied with?
Airshow aerobatics should be flown with necessary margin ie. a looping manoeuvre should not be flown by ‘max performing’ the aircraft. Instead the aircraft should have excess energy in which the pull can be somewhat relaxed, allowing for increased altitude over the top (gate) and thus ample margin on the way back down. These techniques are not ‘taught’ during military flying training or if one was doing competition aerobatics. It is specific to the safe execution of display flying where one is looking to show off the aircraft in an attractive manor. {sic} Not displaying ones skill for executing the manouevures or the full capabilities of the aircraft.
This goes into the planning of the event and of the maneuver, as well as the execution.

@legalapproach: thanks, great post.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.