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 6th Dec 2020, 16:08
  #701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 192
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
Can someone explain to me what motivation the CAA might have for wanting to influence the findings of further investigation into CI? There does not seem to be an obvious equivalent to the “protect the retired Air Marshals” allegation associated with Mull, etc. The CAA’s regulation of display supervision has already been discredited; what else could it be hoping to protect? A finding of CI would surely take attention *away from* airworthiness matters, if indeed there is anything to be diverted from.

As for the RAF, a finding of CI’s existence would actually be quite convenient to very senior leadership in implementing its vision for uncrewed platforms. So not sure what institutional motivation is being implied there either.
Agree with this. CI being real would be a convenient excuse to CAA “oh, we didnt know about this CI, it explains everything, nothing else to see here” (sweeps regulatory issues under carpet).

looking at the credentials of the panel - 3x Profs, 1x Doctors and a couple of other professionals - who have worked in the UK, Aus, US and NZ, I have no reason to doubt their relevant professionalism or experience. They are also displaying willing to put their name to the report, so if there was contrary evidence they would be discredited immediately.

It starts looking like parts of the US unwillingness to look at science in the face if Covid-19 because it doesn’t suit their narrative.
flighthappens is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2020, 22:52
  #702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 77
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 26 Posts
Coroners Inquiry

A Coroner is required to 'explore facts' to determine the probable cause of any 'unnatural death. One would assume they are 'independent' and able to use whatever information is available to come to a decision. The use of CI by the defendants team was part of a 'legal' process to show doubt on the prosecutions case which was in itself was poorly constituted, and probably not the correct charge to have been made.
A Coroner has the opportunity to look at the 'facts' and engage with information from outside independent bodies to assist in a fair inquiry.
I suspect that a Coroner will be very wary of being influenced by 'clouding issues' and more interested in exploring how this sad and tragic accident happened in what is supposed to be a highly regulated regime. It may well be that the more basic details of the situation will be explored in greater detail, and a honest and reasonable cause attributed to this accident.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2020, 09:59
  #703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: glasgow
Posts: 296
Received 29 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
Can someone explain to me what motivation the CAA might have for wanting to influence the findings of further investigation into CI? .
If the investigation discovered that there was clear and available evidence that CI existed which predated Shoreham, then there would be an inference that a diligent regulator would have sought to address it in regulations for pilot medicals and or airshow display rules. As the CAA had done neither, there would be a clear basis for an allegation of negligence.
All hypothetical obviously, and as I have said already, I am not saying that CI does exist, or that the CAA report is incorrect. Simply that the CAA had such an obvious and significant conflict of interest that they were arguably the worst people to be carrying out the investigation as, however thorough they were, suspicion would remain.
falcon900 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2020, 20:35
  #704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 77
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 26 Posts
Cloud building !!

[QUOTE=Easy Street;10941581]Can someone explain to me what motivation the CAA might have for wanting to influence the findings of further investigation into CI? There does not seem to be an obvious equivalent to the “protect the retired Air Marshals” allegation associated with Mull, etc. The CAA’s regulation of display supervision has already been discredited; what else could it be hoping to protect? A finding of CI would surely take attention *away from* airworthiness matters, if indeed there is anything to be diverted from.

If you remove all the issues of a 'trial' and merely investigated how this accident happened under a CAA regulated system, it would throw up many items that were less than satisfactory, and certainly did not even follow the system as envisaged by the authority. The common factor in all this was the authority itself therefore the CI input if nothing else was a convenient distraction from the rather more relevant route of how the system itself was implemented. Having been provided with a suitable 5/8 of cloud cover in court, increasing this only diverts attention away from more tangible evidence. Who benefits from that !!. Mistakes/Errors happen so the original CPS case was not appropriate, and should not have singled out the Pilot. Let us hope that the Coroner looks at the wider picture.



POBJOY is offline  
Old 15th May 2021, 17:34
  #705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In these somewhat difficult times does anyone know if a new date for a resumed inquest has yet been set?
DODGYOLDFART is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 17:08
  #706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: sussex
Age: 75
Posts: 192
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/news/s...february-2022/
skridlov is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2022, 21:06
  #707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cayley's County - Yorkshire
Posts: 290
Received 40 Likes on 15 Posts
The coroner due to hold inquests into the deaths at Shoreham air crash has lost her High Court bid to obtain video footage from the pilot's cockpit.

BBC report here



CAEBr is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 09:40
  #708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aircraft had issues

Originally Posted by POBJOY
TUC My comment was referring to the point that the 'aircraft itself' did not cause or was part responsible for the incident notwithstanding any issues re its permit.
I think you will find the aircraft itself had restrictions on aeros placed by a maintenance organisation. It had a major issue which has not been mentioned by the CAA or the AAIB. This major issue may have resulted in the flying controls being compromised. The failure would most likely happen under high G.
Therefore did the CAA carry out a proper inspection of the aircraft and it records at all. Did the AAIB have the full maintenance records for the aircraft going back at least 10 years prior and if the failure had happened would it have been realised and identified in the wreckage. Were all the records proved to the AAIB.
Also remember the AAIB sometimes ask maintenance companies that may have been involved with the maintenance of the aircraft for help an assistance during investigations. Surely this is a conflict of interest by the AAIB.

Personally I think too much was placed on pilot error / judgement and trying to prove this. More investigation into the pre flight condition of the aircraft, maintenance carried out or not carried out and reported problems should have been looked into more detail and the impact these could have had on the aircraft and the reason for the pilots response or non response.
Hebog is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 09:44
  #709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,317
Received 621 Likes on 270 Posts
Personally I think too much was placed on pilot error / judgement and trying to prove this.
Who was it made a mess of the manoeuvre? The engineers? The CAA? No, it was the bloke with his hands on the controls.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 11:44
  #710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes he had his hand on the controls but if say those controls had been restricted due to a failure in the aircraft structure and the lack of engine power and despite anything he did the aircraft wouldn't have responded as expected by the pilot.

Hebog is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 11:51
  #711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,364
Received 508 Likes on 143 Posts
Hebog

Using any of the numerous videos of the accident that are available publicly, please tell us (with the benefit of your extensive experience of flying military jets or investigating jet accidents) at what stage you think the jet exhibited any signs of a control restriction or control failure.

It is entirely possible that you have discovered something that the combined minds of the AAIB failed to consider. My money is on something else though. Something that the AAIB did have on their list.

BV

Last edited by Bob Viking; 5th Feb 2022 at 14:04.
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 13:45
  #712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I am not a pilot but have operated Police Helicopters for many years. For me the Important factor comes from the soundtrack of one of the commentators at the Airshow who said that he thought the Pilot doing the loop was a bit low - And that was said before the crash!

TF

Last edited by tigerfish; 5th Feb 2022 at 13:46. Reason: error
tigerfish is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 13:59
  #713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Hebog
I think you will find the aircraft itself had restrictions on aeros placed by a maintenance organisation. It had a major issue which has not been mentioned by the CAA or the AAIB. This major issue may have resulted in the flying controls being compromised. The failure would most likely happen under high G.
Therefore did the CAA carry out a proper inspection of the aircraft and it records at all. Did the AAIB have the full maintenance records for the aircraft going back at least 10 years prior and if the failure had happened would it have been realised and identified in the wreckage. Were all the records proved to the AAIB.
Also remember the AAIB sometimes ask maintenance companies that may have been involved with the maintenance of the aircraft for help an assistance during investigations. Surely this is a conflict of interest by the AAIB.

Personally I think too much was placed on pilot error / judgement and trying to prove this. More investigation into the pre flight condition of the aircraft, maintenance carried out or not carried out and reported problems should have been looked into more detail and the impact these could have had on the aircraft and the reason for the pilots response or non response.
Could you please give some indication as to the nature of what compromised the flying controls? There may well have been an issue but it did not degrade the flying qualities of the aircraft on that sortie. There was sufficient elevator authority available to maintain the aircraft at an angle of attack that gave maximum instantaneous turn performance/pitch rate throughout the manoeuvre and enabled the aircraft to be pulled into an accelerated stall before impact. Wings level was maintained during the downward portion of the manoeuvre and there was no evidence of any sideslip. Therefore, although you may have some information that indicates a potential problem there is no evidence to show that the performance of the aeroplane was affected in any way whatsoever.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 14:02
  #714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,364
Received 508 Likes on 143 Posts
Tigerfish

I know it’s been said on here before but I would like to reiterate that being low before the pull up would have had no bearing on the accident whatsoever. Anyone can stretch a loop upwards by relaxing the pull on the way up if necessary.

If the commentary states he looked low at the top then that commentator had a very keen eye and was absolutely correct.

BV

PS. LOMCEVAK I was hoping you’d jump in. I knew you’d say it better than me.

Last edited by Bob Viking; 5th Feb 2022 at 14:16.
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2022, 14:38
  #715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Post this and the publication of CAA CAP1724 it is still permitted to commence an aerobatic manoeuvre from flypast height minima so long as the aircraft is no more than 30 degrees nose up on climbing through the minimum aerobatic height, and AH was above his flypast minima when he pulled up for this manoeuvre.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2022, 19:48
  #716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Hebog
I think you will find the aircraft itself had restrictions on aeros placed by a maintenance organisation. It had a major issue which has not been mentioned by the CAA or the AAIB. This major issue may have resulted in the flying controls being compromised. The failure would most likely happen under high G.
Therefore did the CAA carry out a proper inspection of the aircraft and it records at all. Did the AAIB have the full maintenance records for the aircraft going back at least 10 years prior and if the failure had happened would it have been realised and identified in the wreckage. Were all the records proved to the AAIB.
Also remember the AAIB sometimes ask maintenance companies that may have been involved with the maintenance of the aircraft for help an assistance during investigations. Surely this is a conflict of interest by the AAIB.

Personally I think too much was placed on pilot error / judgement and trying to prove this. More investigation into the pre flight condition of the aircraft, maintenance carried out or not carried out and reported problems should have been looked into more detail and the impact these could have had on the aircraft and the reason for the pilots response or non response.
I think you have little understanding of the maintenance of any aircraft as well! If there was any restriction by a maintenance inspection on the aircraft especially being an ex military Permit to Fly aircraft, the CAA regulations state that the maintenance recording should follow the service recording for the aircraft in military service. Thus if there was any limitations by a maintenance inspection that restricted the scope of handling of the aircraft such as high energy manoeuvres should have been recorded in the F703 limitations red pages of the F700 tech log. BV would have known such as some of his Jaguars flown had limitations on MTOM and landing weight. G limitations on some airframes as well due to high fatigue life. Pilot signs the tech log to say he is happy to take the aircraft in the condition it is in and will consider the limitations is part and parcel of his operation of the airframe. If it had maintenance limitations, the engineers should legally have recorded it, he should have known them from reading the tech log AND should have abided by it. If you are an engineer involved in knowing about such and not recording it, I would quite happily hang, draw and quarter if you did not record such detail. The CAA do not do inspections on aircraft, they empower A8-23 or A8-24 orgs to do such under audit and proof of competency of the engineering staff employed by such. I must admit reading and hearing of the standard that the CAA will allow people to hold certifying positions in such A8 companies shocks me (I am an unrestricted B1 CAA AML type rated and current holder that has C cert rights as well). I know the AAIB inspector that did investigate the accident as lead and and on hearing of his involvement on the case, I mentioned the name of the pilot. We were sitting with two FJ pilots in the conversation and the way their lips curled with the name mentioned said it all. Both have done Hunter instruction time and multi thousand hour FJ logged hours. 2+2 =4 unlike your 5.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2022, 16:29
  #717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tigerfish
I am not a pilot but have operated Police Helicopters for many years. For me the Important factor comes from the soundtrack of one of the commentators at the Airshow who said that he thought the Pilot doing the loop was a bit low - And that was said before the crash!

TF
That did not happen.
JMVR is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2022, 15:56
  #718 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 1,017
Received 16 Likes on 7 Posts
I can't see this posted anywhere else - and I'm not even sure this is the right place for it, since the 'Trial' finished in 2019.

But anyway, the Inquest is finally due to start on Wednesday 30 November at County Hall North (Parkside), Horsham. It's expected to last till 20 December.

If Mods think a new thread would be more appropriate, I'm sure they'll make the appropriate arrangements!

airsound

airsound is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2022, 14:29
  #719 (permalink)  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,698
Received 285 Likes on 128 Posts
Originally Posted by airsound
I can't see this posted anywhere else - and I'm not even sure this is the right place for it, since the 'Trial' finished in 2019.

But anyway, the Inquest is finally due to start on Wednesday 30 November at County Hall North (Parkside), Horsham. It's expected to last till 20 December.

If Mods think a new thread would be more appropriate, I'm sure they'll make the appropriate arrangements!

airsound
Let's keep it here. Thanks for keeping an eye on that.
T28B is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2022, 08:52
  #720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,357
Received 355 Likes on 206 Posts
It needs to be kept up to date but can we avoid revisiting every aspect that has been flogged to death on here in the past
Asturias56 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.