wokkamate,

If I may elaborate. At the start of this thread (Sorry, the original thread) we were asked NOT to speculate on the root cause of this tragic event (I refrain from calling it an accident).

When the CAA publish their findings, we may still not have a definitive cause...only possibilities. We can speculate 'till the cows come home but, we don't know if the crash occurred due to:

Engine failure
Control restriction
Airframe failure
Pilot error
Etc, Etc

What we can say is that the aircraft did not crash because the bang seat cart was out of date.

Thankfully, the man at the centre of this is still alive, and may hold the answer.

I am not trying to gloss over this tragic event, I just, like others, do not wish to lay blame where it is not justified (Yet?).

Thank you, what annoys me is a companies procedures, company exposition, etc are audited by the CAA and approved, in fact they go over the top and tear them apart insisting on amendments etc until they are satisfied, then they when the company, and I am presuming they were, operate to that exposition, the CAA / AAIB flag up failings.

This is all when the CAA to save money shut regional offices and cut surveyors, they introduced a light aviation section to deal with all of the companies operating below 2730kg... Think of it how many companies that involves throughout the uk, staffing wise they had about 5, some I believe quit resulting in about 3 to cover the country auditing hundreds if not thousands of companies all from Gatwick, now the staffing has probably increased, but to audit a company in say Newcastle, that's a day travelling, two at least to audit it then a days travelling back.... It just does not add up. And you wonder why the turn over of staff, I'd hate to be in that family.

That is all the CAA's own doing; over the years they have been protecting their gold plated world by burying everything in complicated paperwork, as soon as something goes wrong they point the finger at the organisations who have to spend thousands just to have the privilege of being audited, so I have no sympathy for the CAA what so ever. The sooner that glass house at Gatwick gets a shake up and a sense of reality the better.

While sorting out the masses of stuff I collected in the days of being in Publishing I found a news article from Aeroplane Monthly in December 2005


Titled
Government enquiry into CAA - But latest bureaucratic bombshell from the regulators could ground all historic --- aircraft


I wonder, did anything happen then




V1

Dig a little deeper
 

The U.K. CAA may have its shortcomings but the root of the problem is east by few hundred miles in Cologne, the U.K. CAA ( that is just a local office of EASA) is a rank amateur at paperwork and stupid decision making in comparison with EASA.

Totally agree, I remember destroying tons of AD's etc from MAMIS etc, we went from one of the finest regulators in the world to a system dumbed down the the lowest European denominator, as it was easier to dumb it down than to lift the other regulatory authorities up to the same standard.
EASA is just another bureaucratic nightmare that seems to exist purely to generate self sustaining legislation.

Why do the same old people have to beat their chests on (emotionally) sensitive issues, when they have have never called a cockpit their office or haven't maintained one?

Andy and/or the engineers are innocent until proven guilty here - lets wait on the final publication and in the meantime, lets give our condolences to the victims' families over the festive period, and also to Andy and his family. PLEASE?!

JSF, can I, as a penguin who was around aeroplanes for 7/8ths of his working life just say thank you for THE best post on this (and many other) forums.

Merry christmas and a safe new year.

PM

Merry Christmas, Kaitakbowler. Have a good one!

Ok, thanks all. No worries, just interested in the speculation, but if we have been asked to refrain, then refrain I shall. WM out.

JSF (or should I say Typhoon 93). How ridiculously ironic, coming from you who I suspect by your other posts has never had any professional involvement in the operating, maintaining, supporting, procurement etc of military aircraft.

There are points made or questions asked by wokkamate and Arfur Dent which are perfectly reasonable to raise. I don't think that they have been answered and as for wokkamate's, certainly not by Nutloose's reply, which showed a firm grasp of (some of) the issues identified post accident, but not the causes.

As for O-P's point about not speculating, why? The closed shop that some on this forum would like to see is not healthy. If I can just remind everyone that this accident killed 11 people, some of whom had absolutely no involvement with the airshow.

I will be hounded for this, but I for one think that it's about time the accident pilot was interviewed. I certainly feel that he has many questions to answer. In the same way that anyone else at the heart of such a tragic event would have questions to answer. If I was involved in a hobby or pastime that hazarded the lives of others when it goes wrong, then I would expect to have to face the consequences.

Merry Christmas all.

S-D

I've refrained from any comment on any of the related threads so far, but it's all getting pretty senseless with the exception of JSF's recent post.
What speed do you think AH hit the ground at and how quickly or within what distance did the aircraft decelerate? Deceleration G? Even without direct head trauma his brain will have endured considerable shearing forces. I suspect he can remember nothing at all about the accident so don't sit up expecting any revelations.
This might be a rumour network but couldn't the speculation about speculation just be left aside? Please?
Caramba

Uninformed speculation by visitors here who's sole source of ideas is the Daily Mail Online and who are hungry to see someone hung out to dry - that's not healthy. What you describe as "closed shop" is purely a desire to try to stop that naive, vindictive, speculative rubbish that is all too prevalent at times like this. If it were not for the fact that we have seen what happens when the accident chasers appear out of the woodwork here, I suspect we could have a useful, well-informed debate about it. As it is, any such discussion would rapidly descend into speculative, not to mention libellous, accusations. We've already seen how some of you have determined that the "figure" was poorly flown, that the entry height would certainly have resulted in a crash and that the lack of any technical faults being found by the inquiry equates to pilot error. And you wonder no one wants to encourage that kind of debate here.

It doesn't matter how many many people died and how involved or otherwise they were, no amount of speculative debate here is going to make any difference to them nor (more importantly) is it going to find any substantiated answers.

It is the fact that you and others cite how tragic the outcome of the accident was that convinces me that reasoned, dispassionate debate is not on your menu.

Courtney, I can't speak for the others that you refer to, but you are certainly misinterpreting my interest and the reason I restated the consequences of this event. I suspect deliberately so, as it suits your desire to prevent any form of sensible discussion that might start to get at why this happened.

If you read back through the original thread you will see that I have made no reference to how the display was flown or to any potential technical failures. On the former, I am not qualified, and on the latter, that really would be pure speculation. As I have said on the original thread, I am more interested in what took place before the display, eg, management, planning, training, experience, currency, authorisations etc, etc. Surely that it not an unreasonable area to discuss.

You and many others with your background, understandably I suppose, come across as keen to close ranks and protect the pilot involved, rather than have a frank and open debate about why this happened and how future such losses can be prevented. This feels very much like the criticisms that have often been levelled at the medical profession.

So yes, reasoned, dispassionate debate is very much on my menu. Assessment of the consequences, including who is affected when if an accident were to occur is very much part of that.

S-D

That's the whole point, SD. Without access to the facts no one here has a hope at getting at why this happened. All anyone can do with what little has been released is to speculate. Im pretty sure I could write you a three paragraph post on what we know that would make perfect sense (and COULD be right), but I won't because it could lead to all sorts of other readers here turning it into gospel truth. I you want to have a debate based on a handful of newspaper reports, go ahead - I can't stop you. But speculating won't "start to get at why this happened".

Again, I feel no need whatsover to close ranks and I look forward to a time whan we know the facts so that we can discuss them - openly and frankly. To do so now would have to involve so much supposition that it would be meaningless at best, based on false premise at worst. The only thing I am keen to avoid is the same sort of thing that always happens here; poorly informed guests stating their pet theories as facts. It is especially likely in an incident like this where there is so much strong feeling due to the high casualty count - exactly the point you made and exactly why dispassionate, logical debate is unlikely without the facts.

But, if you feel the need, you go ahead. Don't be surprised if I and others mention it when the woodworms start spouting rubbish and trying to form a virtual lynch mob..

This is an internet forum, not the AAIB. The numerous "speculative" threads on other incidents on other boards on this forum are informative. Why you think this incident should be any different - except that maybe you have a personal connection to the pilot?

SD's questions were perfectly reasonable.

Re Caramba #72 above. This is my first ever post. Thank you for letting me take part. Long since a pilot but 35 years of accident investigation. I have interviewed many who have received head injuries or lost consciousness because of traumatic events. One thing I did learn is, most of them, if not all, could not remember what actually happened to them, even when it was in their financial interest to do so, or mine as a prosecutor.

I learned this lesson before I rolled a car at speed and crashed. I was out cold for 20 minutes. Lying in hospital later, being an investigator, I tried to piece together the accident fragments "left" in my mind. I remembered the last thing as seeing a car in my rear view mirror coming up to a junction behind me in the sunshine.

The accident actually happened in the rain. I realised I had recalled the exact same time the previous week when I had driven the same road in the sunshine. Beware what those with head injuries tell you. It must be independently corroborated and that is one of the benefits of Scottish law as I understand it, at a distance.

UWAS, illuminating, thank you.

Indeed if AH was, as we were told, put into an artificial coma as part of the treatment to save his life after the accident then, really, how can he be expected to have any reliable memories??

I say that with the greatest of respect for the gentleman, he is also a casualty of that event.

gr.

A&C.. EASA have sod all to do with PtF matters in this country. It is all covered by BCARs and specific CAPs as you well know.