Andy Hill interviewed
 

Apparently Andy Hills is now well enough to be interviewed. Sorry can't find the original thread.

Police question Shoreham air show disaster pilot Andy Hill - Telegraph

It seems that everything prior to mid November has been archived. The old thread is here: Hawker Hunter Loss at Shoreham Airshow [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Current thread here:

http://www.pprune.org/accidents-clos...oreham-35.html

His surname is Hill not Hills. :rolleyes:

I would be surprised if he can remember much about the whole episode.

amazing - nearly 4 months before they interviewed him under caution

Normally if someone kills (inadvertently or otherwise) a group of people the law are all over them instantly - you kill someone in a car and the SOP seems to be instant arrest and (if you are lucky) police bail

HH
 

Police interview depends on the state of fitness for interview of the person being interviewed both physical and mental otherwise any information could be considered to have been gathered under duress.

Clearly Mr Hill has now recovered to a state that allows an interview to be conducted without putting him under undue pressure and in a state to give reliable evidence.

Latest AAIB Report here.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...015_G-BXFI.pdf

The ejection seat issue could see the end of civillian swept wing vintage jet operations in the UK. Is the increased risk of operating with deactivated seats acceptable?

You could take the view that Martin Baker ceasing all support for the seats in Feb 2015 effectively grounded a brace of different aircraft types from civilian operation well ahead of the accident.

There are raft of engineering and airworthiness issues in that bulletin and is reminiscent of the SA Lightning crash with a bit of H-C thrown in for good measure.

The CAA looks like it was totally asleep at the wheel. As to how it had been satisfied over the airworthiness, maintenance and safety of a type with no OEM support for the aircraft, its escape systems or even a process to ensure the technical documents were up to date just beggars belief.

While I can see that the presence of live seat components in the wreckage certainly posed a hazard to the first responders, I can't really see why the report is fixating on the serviceability of the seat in the aircraft. It seems to me that the ability or not of the pilot to have exited the aircraft prior to the accident is of minor concern, when we are looking at the type of accident, and the casualties caused on the ground. Does the pilot escaping make something like this any less of a tragedy? Perhaps they are concerned that they would have no one to interview.

Agree with A&C. If he was on meds, an interview isn't worth the paper it's written on. I suspect the police did the right thing waiting.



You've just described formal MoD policy for most of the last 30 years! Hawk XX177? No SC for seat.

Merry Xmas.

It was this reason that the RAAF grounded it's airworthy Sabre early in the year.....
Temora cited they had enough stock of MB seat equipment for 'Winston' for another season or two of flying, but hinted that too could be grounded after that unless an approved suitable alternative could be found in light of MB's decision.

I dread to think, but this is starting to look like a mirror image of the "Thunder City" accident.

There are going to be a lot of people including those in the CAA who will be doing some deep soul searching.

Any type of BOI invariably looks at the organization and culture surrounding the accident. In an aircraft accident, the regulation and supporting documentary evidence are key pieces of the puzzle. What the CAA are saying here is that enthusiasm and good intentions are no substitute for regulation and control. What the CAA have unwittingly revealed, and as Tucumseh and JTO mention, is that for these omissions and oversights to have been quite as systematic across vintage FJ operations as they appear to be, nobody at the CAA was paying attention until 2 tragic accidents occurred in a short space of time.

sole searching - isn't that a job for a trawler or chiropodist? :sad:

How many aircraft are certified this way?
 

Roughly how many ex military swept wing jet aircraft with ejector seats is the CAA granting Permits to Fly to?

I wonder what the decision by MB to stop supplying technical support and replacement parts to aircraft that no longer operate in a military role will have to those ex military jets flying in the USA?

In a way XH558's retirement due to other regulatory issues could also have been brought about by the MB decision, although it would have been an interesting argument, with only half the crew having ejection seats.

Sad day for jet displays I think.

PhilipG,

Many of the ex-military aircraft flying in the USA are registered in the Experimental category and are not required to operate with functioning ejection seats, although some may be eligible to do so and the requirements are stated here:

Experimental Airworthiness Certificates

Examples of Experimental registration:

Draken: Platinum Fighter Sales | Warbird and Classic Aircraft For Sale

Mig 29: Mig 29UB / Fulcrum B by Raptor Aviation, Inc.

For those that are interested, the FAA pilot qualification requirements are here:

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v0...09_002rev1.htm

It looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors and actually appears to have not a lot to do with the accident itself, simply the maintenance recording and operation, and that follows the general wording of the original fleet grounding in that it inferred more a maintenance grounding than an aircraft failure.

And that appears to be a failing of the CAA in putting in place clear and unambiguous instructions, it does not surprise me as the CAA are a shadow of their former selves in that they have few qualified experienced aircraft engineers amongst their core staff.
They bleat on about how one must follow the maintenance programmes for the type, yet in another breath tell me I can ignore sections of the manufacturers maintenance manual, dangerous ground because once you take that stance it is open to interpretation by individual companies as to what they comp,y with and what they don't!.

Whilst NOT pre-judging the enquiry, police findings or any potential criminal proceedings has there been any incidents in the past where surviving crew have been prosecuted for negligent,careless flying etc?