Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Originally Posted by bvcu
interesting read and theory about fuel pump. BUT read the report , the aircraft was not airworthy in the first place so shouldnt have been flying. Approved by CAA so there the problem lies. If airworthy then the other factors could be relevant . Info all in AAIB report findings.
pasta - absolutely correct. The manoeuvre was flown from below the planned entry height, 40KIAS below the planned entry speed and with less than full power. The apex gate was not achieved, but the manoeuvre could still have been aborted at that point.
What isn't known is WHY these errors were made.
What isn't known is WHY these errors were made.
Originally Posted by falcon900
The point is not whether you or I with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight consider the lights made a difference. The point is that someone before the incident conducted a risk evaluation which determined that it was important that they were set to Green, and the display was authorised on the basis that they would be. You might be right that there was no incremental loss of life as a result of there being a queue of traffic for the aircraft to plough into ( good luck arguing that one) but it remains the case that a condition precedent was not fulfilled, and nobody has been taken to task.
1. Road traffic risks to vehicles entering/leaving the airport area - this junction is the only means of access for most vehicles (there is a very narrow and height restricted road access to the south of the airport)
2. Road traffic risks to "secondary spectators" who were known to gather at the junction.
I'm not certain of the exact traffic conditions at the time of the accident but it is likely that westbound traffic was very slow moving all the way back from the roundabout at North Lancing and onto the flyover to the east of the airport. This is the route to/from my office and it's what I see in the afternoons when I am going home eastbound through the junction.
The main reasons for setting the traffic lights to be green during an airshow would be:
1. to stop eastbound traffic from tailing back to the North Lancing roundabout, aggravating the congestion there
2. with right turns prohibited and the other road closures in place they would not be required except (possibly) to control traffic leaving the airshow.
Originally Posted by pasta
If the aircraft had been airworthy but all other circumstances been the same, would the incident still have happened, with the same results? In my view it probably would have done, so whilst the airworthiness issues are serious and warrant further action, I don't think you can say they were the root cause.
If, for example, the regulations had been implemented the pilot would have had an up-to-date set of Flight Reference Cards (not those from April 1974), the engineers would have had up-to-date tech pubs, and the fuel pump would have been serviceable. Perhaps the Master Airspeed Indicator and G-Meter would have been serviceable? Maybe the various missing instruments would have been fitted?
The CAA certification stated that the RAF was responsible for the underpinning process, with permission to fly predicated on this. They were not, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN, which is a complete howler. It has never been made clear who was. Some may opine that none of this had a direct bearing on the accident flight (I'm not so sure), but such gross failures are indicative of systemic and wider failings - which the AAIB report lists in excruciating detail. (Little wonder the pilot and Coroner wanted it read out in court, and the CAA did not). There's obviously someone in the loop who decided not to bother doing their job, or was told this mandate would be waived. And the CAA allowed this, with their mandated audit 7 months overdue.
Mr Hill admitted he screwed up, but couldn't explain it. Time for others to be equally honest. They don't need to explain, because we already know.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by tucumseh
I think you need to look at it slightly differently. If the airworthiness regulations had been implemented correctly, the accident would not have happened because the aircraft would not have been flying. Ergo, that failure to implement is a root cause.
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
True - inasmuch as the root cause of every airborne accident is the fact that the aircraft was flying at the time ...
tucumseh makes some very good points, there were clearly massive airworthiness failings, but it appears that this accident probably happened before the airworthiness issues had a chance to cause a different one.
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
True - inasmuch as the root cause of every airborne accident is the fact that the aircraft was flying at the time ...
In military accidents this is the role of the Service Inquiry engineer. In civilian accidents, the AAIB. The latter are pretty good at it; although in this case they didn't go too far, but said enough to identify the culprits. The former simply don't bother, and it is left to the public to investigate. The 'final act' syndrome.
"The root causes of most accidents are usually deficiencies in systems, whether these are systems for management, design, certification, maintenance, and/or operation".
(Tony Cable, Senior Investigator Air France Concorde, PanAm Lockerbie, Chinooks ZD576 and ZA721, etc, etc.).
Shoreham has root causes in all these domains. In only one has legal action been taken.
Originally Posted by tucumseh
In military accidents this is the role of the Service Inquiry engineer. In civilian accidents, the AAIB. The latter are pretty good at it; although in this case they didn't go too far, but said enough to identify the culprits. The former simply don't bother, and it is left to the public to investigate. The 'final act' syndrome.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Link to BBC report above.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64503147
Shoreham air crash: Pilot seeks judicial review of inquest verdict
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64503147
Shoreham air crash: Pilot seeks judicial review of inquest verdict
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Many would suggest he'd be better off staying quiet
The following users liked this post:
Does the Coroner’s verdict render him liable to be pursued through the civil courts by the relatives where, I believe, the verdict is on balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt? If so, that is probably his motive for pushing for a judicial review.
Originally Posted by Timelord
Does the Coroner’s verdict render him liable to be pursued through the civil courts by the relatives where, I believe, the verdict is on balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt? If so, that is probably his motive for pushing for a judicial review.
Ms Schofield said that although she recorded a narrative verdict of unlawful killing, it did not "detract from the fact" Mr Hill was acquitted in a criminal court in 2019.
It is not yet clear on what grounds Mr Hill is asking for the review.
The coroner will be given the opportunity to respond, and then it will be up to the High Court to decide whether to hear the case.
It is not yet clear on what grounds Mr Hill is asking for the review.
The coroner will be given the opportunity to respond, and then it will be up to the High Court to decide whether to hear the case.
Originally Posted by falcon900
Many undoubtedly would, and I can easily imagine that the relatives of the victims might be among them, but there is definitely unfinished business here, and there might at least be some saying it is brave of AH to push to have the full picture exposed to daylight.
"RAF, just how many people do you have working in your Hunter Design Authority Directorate?"
lots of course - but its SECRET covered by the Act as it could be of use to a Foreign Power - you'll just have to trust us....................
lots of course - but its SECRET covered by the Act as it could be of use to a Foreign Power - you'll just have to trust us....................
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"RAF, just how many people do you have working in your Hunter Design Authority Directorate?"
lots of course - but its SECRET covered by the Act as it could be of use to a Foreign Power - you'll just have to trust us....................
lots of course - but its SECRET covered by the Act as it could be of use to a Foreign Power - you'll just have to trust us....................
Perhaps a greater reason why MoD and especially the HSE would not want this discussed in detail, is that the same AAN cites the MoD documentation that disproves the allegation against Martin-Baker in the Sean Cunningham case. And the HSE was a major contributor to the AAIB report. That is called prosecutorial misconduct.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by tucumseh
Perhaps a greater reason why MoD and especially the HSE would not want this discussed in detail, is that the same AAN cites the MoD documentation that disproves the allegation against Martin-Baker in the Sean Cunningham case. And the HSE was a major contributor to the AAIB report. That is called prosecutorial misconduct.
The following users liked this post:
