KenV, I agree.

I think I understand why Courtney is (so far) politely requesting that people button it. He is doing so out of fairness. Speculating on the cause of the accident, pointing fingers, suggesting legal consequences.... it's not fair, is it? It's not fair on Andy or his family, it's not fair on the families of the victims, and it's not fair on the event organisers.

Perhaps it's for the best that we let the experts do their job? They will have the answers.

OK Trim Stab, let me be clear. First,

I see no reason why he shouldn't. I'm not sure why you would regard the entry height as an allegation since you posted earlier,

Second,

And

Neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what is in Andy's display authorisation. If you don't understand what a display authorisation is or where minimum heights are stipulated read CAP 403 before repeating such "allegations" in public. You should already be conversant with the Air Navigation Order given your CPL. Perhaps you might consider if the allegations were made by anyone that has seen Andy's DA; I doubt its contents will reach the public domain until much later in the investigation.

The display regulations would allow a 100 foot fly past to pull up into an aerobatic manoeuvre and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the entry, provided the FDD, CAA or the pilot's DAE had not imposed additional restrictions. As none of that information is currently available, your question is based on someone else's uninformed speculation.

Third,

I am astonished either that you cannot understand how inappropriate that question is in public or that you simply choose to ignore that it is. Anyone here with half a brain can work out the answer to your question, but most seem to be capable of keeping such bad taste musings to themselves. As you probably already know the answer, I have to wonder what would motivate you to invite yet further speculation on that.

The title of this forum may include the word 'rumour', but it starts with the word 'professional'. Behave as such and show some respect rather than feeding your idle curiosity about whether a well-respected professional pilot is going to be prosecuted.

Agree with absolutely every thing Courtney Mil said above. The entry height is irrelevant to the mvr flown and those quoting it as a potential factor in the accident merely highlight their lack of knowledge and understanding of low level display flying.

Yep, discussion is pretty much irrelevant as the vast majority don't fly Air Displays and whatever is said you can't uncrash the jet.

There are no winners, hopefully someone may learn something that makes this kind of accident less likely.

I just feel very sorry for all concerned, especially the bereaved and those marred and scarred.

Quote:

---

Neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what is in Andy's display authorisation.

---

Thats not true is it? The AAIB special bulletin gives the following:-

You have mentioned motives before, perhaps someone is just trying to understand why, on a hot day with full tanks on display No.1 you might start low? Why try and blur that?

All this talk of "you can start from 100 feet and pull up into your figure" is just poor because how is one assessing that? I don't see how that methodology allows for very accurate / consistent entry, let alone how the FDD or DAE does the same when trying to fulfill the requirements of their roles. As indeed it proves given what has followed.

Its fair enough to defend a friend or whatever but to actively ignore some fairly obvious elements doesn't make you professional at all.

You've completely misunderstood. I have no problems holding aircrew accountable for their actions or inactions. Let me repeat what I clearly stated the first time: I find public speculation about legal prosecution of the pilot based on the flimsiest of data and essentially zero understanding of display flying patently offensive.

To me, such "advice" is equally offensive as the speculation. Maybe worse. It certainly paints the pilot as guilty of something and as having something to hide. I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US all testimony provided in an accident investigation canNOT be used in a court of law precisely to ensure that all the facts are known so such an accident can be prevented. The lawyers have to use other sources of evidence.

Pitts,

It's no surprise that you would chime in on that. If you believe that's the full extent of AH's DA then you know less about the subject than I previously believed.

The remainder of your post is purely argumentative and has little or nothing to do with CM's well made point concerning the poor taste of TS's inappropriate conjecture about prosecution. To answer one of your relevant questions, the DAE assesses all those aspects of the display and it is his call as to whether or not the entry heights are safe. He does not simply assess the display and the pilot, he has a significant teaching and mentoring role as well - both before and after DA is issued in many cases. So, all this talk of "you can start from 100 feet and pull up into your figure" is not POOR because it is very carefully assessed in a long and thorough process. I gather, regardless of your name here, you've never been involved in it. You may research it a little more carefully before rubbishing it here.

QUOTE

in the US all testimony provided in an accident investigation canNOT be used in a court of law precisely to ensure that all the facts are known so such an accident can be prevented

If I understand this it seems incredible, as it puts an investigation above the law.

Perhaps I misunderstand?

Mach - once again there seems to be words being added which I didn't express.

To be clear I highlighted that the point CM made that people have "any idea what is in" AH's DA. Well they do have an idea because the AAIB have given us at least "some" idea.

Sorry Mach but that is not being simply argumentative it is correcting the facts of the matter. As for assessing 100ft to 500ft you tell me how you do that from the ground and how that becomes the smart way to do things?

You are running me over for it and suggesting I have no idea (why you gather or assume to know me only you know) but are you really suggesting that this won't be an element of focus later? Its a serious point sincerely asked.

Correct it cannot - the same applies in the UK, for example hearsay will be examined in an investigation to get a fuller picture, but it is inadmissible in a court of law.

The reasonableness is the test - to be found guilty of any offence you have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hearsay does not pass this test.

Personally I think this a rather unpleasant matter to be discussing on a public forum when almost every contentious point can only be treated as speculative at this point in time, and because we are talking about a professional colleague who right now has a heap of drama to deal with.

Notwithstanding this, of course I understand the trauma, sadness and tragic loss, but obviously cannot comprehend the magnitude, that is being endured by the families of the innocent bystanders who so unfortunately lost their lives. These people are quite rightly seeking answers, but I believe the last thing they want to be reading now is uninformed and misinterpreted conjecture printed in red tops that is sourced, in part, from these pages, and the result of which might lead them to believe something that is later established not to be the case.

Deefer Dog, wise words from one so young.

Would anyone care to explain the purpose of this discussion? I am a retired RAF Fastjet pilot who has flown the Hunter and performed LL aeros. I have now seen all the videos posted and come to the conclusion that the accident could have been caused by several factors or events, but from these videos and the AAIB initial report I am unable to say with any certainty at all what the cause of the accident was.

The AAIB will have access to all that I have seen and much more and they will publish the definitive cause of this tragedy and any contributory factors in due course. Until then we should be hoping / praying, whatever you do, for the recovery of AH and the poor souls that died and their families, and leave all the rest of the crap I have been reading to the ambulance chasers.

Nuff said

Deefer,

Spot on!!

Bill.

Sorry, but you come across as rude and obnoxious with that statement. Just who are you to judge somebody's level of professionalism for doing the right thing by refusing to speculate on a fatal crash that involved a fellow fast-jet pilot?

Keeping quiet and allowing the experts to do their job in peace is far more professional (and respectful) than running ones mouth when they don't have access to the facts.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if AH's family were lurking on this thread, and I can't imagine how bad they feel when reading speculation from people who really should know better.

JSF

You are quite right, but also this has impact for many more. I was over for a brief visit to the south coast and travelling down the A27 to Brighton on Friday before the show and travelled back the very next day. I was talked out of going to watch the show by my partner and spent the lunch in a pub and watched the emergency response go by.

Equally, there is enough potential fault to go around - the road was clearly signposted - no parking or watching the airshow from the A27 for the reasons clearly demonstrated by this tragic turn of events. So the risks to bystanders ( clearly not those driving on the A27) was clearly pointed out, what did the police do to manage this etc etc. you could go on - the simple fact, as every ticket states is that Air displays like motor racing are dangerous and clearly you take risks by attending.

The impact on everyone local has been tremendous, the impact of this is far beyond PPRUNE,everyone has the right to answers and there is a process for that to happen. What is most important is to understand what actually happened, in a fair, accurate and transparent way, learn the lessons and take the appropriate actions. Not only out of respect to Andy but also out of respect of everyone who has been impacted by this event.

Sorry JSF, but you may also be guilty in that respect. PE's response to CM seemed reasonable. You may not like what he is asking, but that does not make him rude and obnoxious. I would suggest that it also does not make him unprofessional.
I have mentioned it before, but there is still a real feeling of people closing ranks here and refusing to contemplate or ask the difficult questions. I don't hold by the "wait for the investigation" view. Constructive discussion can be of enormous benefit in the meantime.

S-D

"Constructive discussion can be of enormous benefit in the meantime."

That would indeed be true, if we were in possession of all the facts, and it is patently obvious to most of us that we clearly are not.

Why can't all you armchair experts understand that the reason all the proper experts aren't commenting is that they are fully aware that all they really know is that they don't know enough to comment?

A prerequisite for a constructive discussion is to have all the relevant data. Without that, its all bulldust and speculation - IMHO of course.

To whom exactly?

You are right, we don't know all of the facts. We may never know all of the facts. This type of crash will always happen in aviation, operators make mistakes, technical failures occur etc. But in this case, so much more went wrong to cause 11 deaths. Many other air shows and public events will take place before the AAIB reports. There are lessons already that can be taken away from this. Even if event organisers are already reconsidering the risks to surrounding areas, that is a start.

What a daft question.

S-D