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 30th Jun 2020, 09:24
  #561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Leicester
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by DODGYOLDFART View Post
CI, could become the standard get out clause for major screw-ups in the future
Or a prosecuting QC could legitimately argue that a display pilot who didn't fly with sufficient margin for error to account for factors including CI could be considered negligent?
DaveJ75 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 13:13
  #562 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 910
Homelover
...how would a journalist know...
Ouch!

Without getting into arguments about whether journalists are capable of investigating things that most people may not know about, I’d like to say that I’m happy to be described as one.

But perhaps of more relevance is that I’ve been an air show commentator for more than forty years, a time that started towards the end of my twenty years’ RAF service.

As a commentator, I had researched and observed Andy Hill displaying in various aircraft. I had met him, and discussed his displays with him. I had read about his commendable time on the Harrier force, his time as an aerobatic instructor, and his many airline captaincy hours. I had formed the impression that he was habitually a meticulous preparer for any flight.

However, I would be the first to accept that I don’t know the detailed answers to the questions that you pose, Homelover, about his preparedness on a particular day. But nor would many others, I suggest, perhaps even you? That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t be described as very competent. You and some others differ, clearly.

I do, also, come back to his Old Bailey trial, which I attended for virtually all of its eight weeks. AH was acquitted of gross negligence manslaughter not because of smooth barristers, although his defence team was very good. No, he was found not guilty because sufficient believable evidence, much of it to a high technical standard, was produced in court to cast doubt on the prosecution evidence. Whatever, the jury was unanimous, after about seven hours of consideration.

airsound




airsound is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 13:34
  #563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,764
Airsound

I realise you know AH and feel a sense of loyalty towards him.

You talk of commendable time on the Harrier and being an aerobatics instructor and an airline pilot. But how much of that was recent or relevant enough to sitting in a Hunter on the day in question?

I could stand next to a Typhoon and very convincingly talk to you about how I could fly it but that ultimately would mean nothing.

BV

Last edited by Bob Viking; 30th Jun 2020 at 18:20.
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 13:54
  #564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,315
There are at least three contributory factors here for the coroner to consider, when he or she finally gets round to it; pilot, aircraft, and venue. The emphasis here has been almost entirely on the former, plus or minus CI. The latter two would suggest a poor, extending to none existent, degree of regulatory oversight. As tuc has previously suggested there are a lot of people hoping that the pilot, plus or minus CI, will take centre stage in that consideration lest attention also be drawn to the latter two factors.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 14:06
  #565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,333
Originally Posted by Chugalug2 View Post
There are at least three contributory factors here for the coroner to consider, when he or she finally gets round to it; pilot, aircraft, and venue. The emphasis here has been almost entirely on the former, plus or minus CI. The latter two would suggest a poor, extending to none existent, degree of regulatory oversight. As tuc has previously suggested there are a lot of people hoping that the pilot, plus or minus CI, will take centre stage in that consideration lest attention also be drawn to the latter two factors.
The CAA doesn't escape so easily even if attention is 100% focussed on the pilot. The civil display pilot certification and currency regime was woefully lax by comparison to its military equivalent. Which, you might well observe, makes a change
Easy Street is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 16:29
  #566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Leicester
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Chugalug2 View Post
The latter two would suggest a poor, extending to none existent, degree of regulatory oversight.
Completely agree with you and Easy Street.

CI or not, there was an unchecked atmosphere in which a display pilot could nibble away at the margins until the inevitable happened. This accident had already been happening for years already and no-one really did anything about it. Frankly, I thought the CAA, and to a lesser degree, the airshow supervision, were jointly culpable to some extent.
DaveJ75 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 17:03
  #567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 1,085
Originally Posted by DaveJ75 View Post
Completely agree with you and Easy Street.

CI or not, there was an unchecked atmosphere in which a display pilot could nibble away at the margins until the inevitable happened. This accident had already been happening for years already and no-one really did anything about it. Frankly, I thought the CAA, and to a lesser degree, the airshow supervision, were jointly culpable to some extent.
And the disaster that was Shoreham was preceeded only a month or so earlier by the Gnat crash at Carfest at Oulton Park, that by luck didn't also result in ground victims.......and also left a question regarding pilot experience and currency.
GeeRam is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 20:21
  #568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 55
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by DaveJ75 View Post
Completely agree with you and Easy Street.

CI or not, there was an unchecked atmosphere in which a display pilot could nibble away at the margins until the inevitable happened. This accident had already been happening for years already and no-one really did anything about it. Frankly, I thought the CAA, and to a lesser degree, the airshow supervision, were jointly culpable to some extent.
I had a quick scan through the AAIB report for the Hurricane that crashed at the 2007 Shoreham Airshow, only a few hundred metres from the 2015 disaster location. Other than pointing out that the aircraft had crashed 250m from Lancing College the report didn't discuss the risks to lives and property on the ground at all.

I really don't think CI is worthy of investigation by the AAIB or CAA at all. What they need to be doing is looking at the more general risk to people on the ground arising from pilot error and/or incapacitation, or even technical failure of the aircraft itself. One possible mitigation for pilot error/incapacitation might be a second pilot on the aircraft to monitor and intervene. This would obviously limit the types of aircraft that could take part.
dastocks is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 21:49
  #569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 327
One possible mitigation for pilot error/incapacitation might be a second pilot on the aircraft to monitor and intervene.
Do you mean like LTC Mark McGeehan, the sqn cdr in LTC Bud Holland's RHS for the Fairchild B52 accident who lost his life trying to monitor and intervene?
Fortissimo is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 00:24
  #570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lost again...
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by Fortissimo View Post
Do you mean like LTC Mark McGeehan, the sqn cdr in LTC Bud Holland's RHS for the Fairchild B52 accident who lost his life trying to monitor and intervene?
He lost his life failing to monitor and intervene!! (And failing to supervise and command as well)

Very sad indeed.

OH
OvertHawk is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 01:51
  #571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,333
Excuse the thread drift...

Originally Posted by OvertHawk View Post
He lost his life failing to monitor and intervene!! (And failing to supervise and command as well)

Very sad indeed.

OH
You need to correct that bracketed slur on a dead man who exercised more command and leadership than everyone else involved in that sorry tale, combined. Bud Holland was not under McGeehan’s command or supervision. As the Wing standards pilot Holland reported directly to Wing leadership so in command terms they shared common superiors. In supervisory terms, if anything, Holland was supposed to supervise the squadron commanders on the leadership’s behalf. McGeehan complained about Holland’s conduct to Colonel Pellerin (who ended up being fined for dereliction of duty), banned squadron pilots from flying with Holland, and flew as co-pilot if any of his rear crew had to fly with him. Not sure what else he could have done as a commander or supervisor. Who knows whether any monitoring or intervention could have saved the day? Given prior occurrences and the degree of personal animosity between the two men I’d have been unsurprised if Holland simply ignored McGeehan or even fought him on the controls. But there’s no evidence for any of that. McGeehan’s biggest definite failing was flying at all, but that’s easy to say when he would have been under pressure to do so from his superiors, who clearly weren’t too concerned about Holland and needed a display for the families’ day. The command and supervisory failures, both on the day and through the long build-up, were all theirs. Retract.

Last edited by Easy Street; 1st Jul 2020 at 02:20.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 06:00
  #572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,279
What more could McGeehan have done OvertHawk?
On 10 March 1994, Holland commanded a single-aircraft training mission to the Yakima Bombing Range, to provide an authorized photographer an opportunity to document the aircraft as it dropped training munitions. The minimum aircraft altitude permitted for that area was 500 feet (150 m) AGL; during the mission, Holland's aircraft was filmed crossing one ridgeline about 30 feet (10 m) above the ground. Fearing for their safety, the photography crew ceased filming and took cover as Holland's aircraft again passed low over the ground, this time estimated as clearing the ridgeline by only three feet (1 m). The co-pilot on Holland's aircraft testified that he grabbed the controls to prevent Holland from flying the aircraft into the ridge while the aircraft's other two aircrew members repeatedly screamed at Holland: "Climb! Climb!" Holland responded by laughing and calling one of the crew members "a pussy"

After that mission, the crew decided that they would never again fly with Holland and reported the incident to the bomb squadron leadership. The USAF squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel Mark McGeehan, reported the incident to Pellerin (commander of the 92nd Operations Group) and recommended that Holland be removed from flying duty. Pellerin consulted with Holland and gave him an oral reprimand and warning not to repeat the behavior, but refused to take him off flying duty. Pellerin also did not document the incident or the reprimand, nor did he notify his superiors, who remained unaware of the incident. McGeehan then decided that in order to protect his aircrews, he (McGeehan) would be the co-pilot on any future missions in which Holland was the command pilot. Evidence suggests that after this incident, "considerable animosity" existed between Holland and McGeehan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_F...ase_B-52_crash

Last edited by megan; 1st Jul 2020 at 06:10.
megan is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 06:49
  #573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 55
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Fortissimo View Post
Do you mean like LTC Mark McGeehan, the sqn cdr in LTC Bud Holland's RHS for the Fairchild B52 accident who lost his life trying to monitor and intervene?
Others have commented on the circumstances surrounding that accident, and it's pretty clear that the Air Force chain of command failed in allowing Bud Holland to continue flying. All I would add is that the accident occurred during practice and damage/loss of life was confined within the Air Force base so, to that extent, the system worked.
dastocks is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 07:30
  #574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by dastocks View Post
What they need to be doing is looking at the more general risk to people on the ground arising from pilot error and/or incapacitation, or even technical failure of the aircraft itself
You're in luck - the CAA have done it. Take a look at the new CAP403 and you'll see swathes of guidance around risk assessment of threat to life on the ground 'in the event of'. You may have noticed a pre-pandemic reduction of planned airshows as a result of this...

Ridger is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 08:00
  #575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 1,085
Originally Posted by Ridger View Post
You're in luck - the CAA have done it. Take a look at the new CAP403 and you'll see swathes of guidance around risk assessment of threat to life on the ground 'in the event of'. You may have noticed a pre-pandemic reduction of planned airshows as a result of this...
And the selling and/or grounding of a number of vintage/classic aircraft as a result.

GeeRam is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 09:49
  #576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 55
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Ridger View Post
You're in luck - the CAA have done it. Take a look at the new CAP403 and you'll see swathes of guidance around risk assessment of threat to life on the ground 'in the event of'. You may have noticed a pre-pandemic reduction of planned airshows as a result of this...
Meanwhile, work has started on building a new IKEA store and 600 homes on land to the west of Shoreham airport which is likely to reduce even further the scope of any future airshow at that location.
dastocks is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 10:37
  #577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 73
Posts: 1,017
Stable doors and bolting horse

Originally Posted by GeeRam View Post
And the selling and/or grounding of a number of vintage/classic aircraft as a result.
Interesting that least guilty party in all this (The Hawker Hunter) has to a degree been used as a scapegoat (to the public) when in fact it seems to have performed 'as required' and even ironically allowed the pilot to live**. This was quite convenient for the 'Authorities' as it diverted attention away from the authorities obvious lack of implementation of the system.
This is where the real problem lies. Even in 2014 there were layers of 'supervision' quite suitable to oversee Air Shows, and normal rules in place to ensure safety.
In the case of Shoreham these 'layers' had been eroded to the point that control of the 'system' was lacking, and mistakes not being picked up. Shoreham is as very 'tight' display arena and probably not really conductive to a high energy machine that is trying to stay within crowd vision, it therefore should have been part of the 'system' that the current rules of the time were observed back to the point of a DA being issued. The Stable Doors have now been firmly secured and indeed virtually nailed down ,which in itself was an over reaction to an 'in place systems' failure to exercise reasonable control.
** The Aircraft was not responsible for this dreadful accident.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 15:06
  #578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post
I can’t believe we are still going round and round this debate. Surely everybody who has ever strapped into an ejector seat ( which excludes all of the lawyers and most of the doctors) and has read the AAIB report knows exactly what happened. He was no where near current or experienced enough in the Hunter to be displaying it in a confined area. He was signed off for displays by a few old mates and on the day screwed it up. Just like most of us have screwed up at some time but, by the grace of God, without these consequences.
Timelord I was one of the lawyers and have strapped myself into an ejection seat on a number of occasions. Even took the pins out and took it flying.
Legalapproach is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 00:11
  #579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Legalapproach View Post
Timelord I was one of the lawyers and have strapped myself into an ejection seat on a number of occasions. Even took the pins out and took it flying.
Do you hold a PDA to display? Can you tell me why a man operating a machine and having full control of the machine at all times as AH had (in video evidence) and killed people escape any form of justice? If it had been a car, it would have been due care and attenion at least. CI is bull. If you had CI,the Hunter would have behaved like Jon Egging's Hawk. Unloaded and fallen out of it's manoeuver. It was criminal that the prosecution screwed up this case. I hope the jury at the inquest are not swayed by subjective arguement. There was back pressure on the control column of that aircraft the whole time. So much at the end as AH knew he had made a massive error. I am with BV in his views on this.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 06:36
  #580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 495
Cat Techie

You've seen and heard all of the evidence given in the trial then? In what way did the prosecution screw up the case? Was it in not calling you as an expert?

Last edited by Legalapproach; 3rd Jul 2020 at 06:51.
Legalapproach is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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