Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
BBC report here
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft had issues
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.
Personally I think too much was placed on pilot error / judgement and trying to prove this.
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
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
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.
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
TF
Last edited by tigerfish; 5th Feb 2022 at 13:46. Reason: error
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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
TF
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
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
Administrator
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
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
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