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 29th Dec 2022, 12:50
  #881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 557
Received 40 Likes on 16 Posts
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.
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.
pasta is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2022, 14:31
  #882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,470
Received 75 Likes on 33 Posts
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.
BEagle is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2022, 14:38
  #883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 58
Posts: 62
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Looking at the AAIB report it is clear that the risk assessments applied to the road junction only considered the following:
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.
dastocks is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2022, 15:10
  #884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,154
Received 52 Likes on 21 Posts
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.
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.

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.
tucumseh is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 29th Dec 2022, 15:52
  #885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,932
Received 50 Likes on 28 Posts
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.
True - inasmuch as the root cause of every airborne accident is the fact that the aircraft was flying at the time ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2022, 16:14
  #886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 557
Received 40 Likes on 16 Posts
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 ...
Exactly. If (hypothetically) a pilot's car was untaxed and uninsured, you couldn't say the root cause of an accident involving that pilot was the police's failure to impound his car, thereby enabling them to drive to the airfield and fly the aircraft. That's despite the fact that the tax and insurance status of the pilot's car might well say something about their attention to detail and their attitude to regulation.

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.
pasta is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2022, 16:34
  #887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,154
Received 52 Likes on 21 Posts
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 ...
Which is precisely why all investigations must confirm, as a matter of urgency, that the aircraft was legally permitted to fly. Almost everything else flows from that. If it wasn't, the reasons why tell the investigator so much.

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.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2022, 16:51
  #888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 618
Received 11 Likes on 6 Posts
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.
Spot on. And I know you've said this repeatedly and understand it, but one is independent and the other is judging its own case.
dervish is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2023, 12:36
  #889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 242
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 1955 Vulcan performed an aileron roll.

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all, will try and make the F4 TDPU this year!

T+9
Busta is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 06:01
  #890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 236
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
South Today News reporting this morning that Hill has started proceedings asking for a judicial review of the coronerís verdict.

dagenham is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 07:53
  #891 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 14,656
Received 354 Likes on 165 Posts
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
ORAC is online now  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 08:01
  #892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 6,327
Received 117 Likes on 69 Posts
Many would suggest he'd be better off staying quiet
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 08:33
  #893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: glasgow
Posts: 263
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Many would suggest he'd be better off staying quiet
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.
falcon900 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 6th Feb 2023, 09:13
  #894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 737
Received 39 Likes on 24 Posts
Does the Coronerís 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.
Timelord is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 10:17
  #895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 29
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Timelord
Does the Coronerís 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.
No the coroner's verdict is completely irrelevant to any issue in civil proceedings where, as you say, the proof required is on a balance of probabilities rather than the higher criminal standard. I assume, possibly wrongly, that the civil case (s) have already been settled.
Raikum is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 10:34
  #896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 6,327
Received 117 Likes on 69 Posts
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.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 10:48
  #897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,154
Received 52 Likes on 21 Posts
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.
I think this a fair view. I can't see how 'unlawful killing' can be justified when so much evidence about the failings of others was not allowed to be heard in court, and the CAA was allowed to judge its own case when confronted with further evidence. Oh, and RAF, just how many people do you have working in your Hunter Design Authority Directorate?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2023, 14:24
  #898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 6,327
Received 117 Likes on 69 Posts
"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....................
Asturias56 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 6th Feb 2023, 16:15
  #899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,154
Received 52 Likes on 21 Posts
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....................
To be fair, when asked the question about this MoD confirmed neither it nor the RAF had ever been Hunter DA. That is, the accident aircraft's Airworthiness Approval Note, reproduced in the AAIB report, was based on a false premise. Which is rather important, as airworthiness facilitates serviceability. G-BXFI was neither.

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.
tucumseh is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 6th Feb 2023, 16:27
  #900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 81
Posts: 4,678
Received 49 Likes on 16 Posts
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.
Indeed, tuc. If you listen very carefully you can hear a rustling sound from inside the tin. If we just open the lid then all will be revealed...
Chugalug2 is offline  
The following users liked this post:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.