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It seems that everything prior to mid November has been archived.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?

Thanks RAFEng,

I had a quick trawl through the CAA website's G-INFO database and it looks to my untrained eyes that there are only about 20 ex military swept wing jets with ejector seats, 15 Hunters already grounded and 6 Gnats, not all of which are flying.

If my numbers are correct, it does seem surprising that the CAA did not have a better handle on what I understand are the most complex aircraft that they issue Permits to Fly to.

I wonder if they are all grounded, are any still operated on behalf of the Navy?

Civil Hunters are grounded, those military ones operated by Hawker Hunter Aviation based at Scampton, are still operating.

Hawker Hunter Aviation |

As a complete outsider ... that interim AAIB report seems to focus totally on the ejection seat aspects, which might have saved the pilot the severe injuries he encountered [yet miraculously survived] but does nothing to progress the investigation into the deaths on the ground. An empty Hunter would, presumably, have had the same or similar effect.

As to "swept wing" flying, does one assume that a civil JP or whatever poses no similar risk when being displayed? I am more confused than usual.

As others have noted, the CAA seems to have been sleeping peacefully.

MPN11,

If aspects related to safety have been uncovered and affect other aircraft types that are currently flying, there is a duty to highlight them as soon as possible whether or not they are causal to the accident under investigation.

There are two separate aspects to consider when looking across different types such as Hunter and JP. The first relates to flying with live or inhibited ejection seats and that is a function of glide approach speed and whether or not it is feasible to forced land off airfield as per a light piston. The second relates to the complexity of a historic type and the robustness of the maintenance manuals.

Rgds

L

I missed this bit when reading the linked report. Explains why it focuses on areas seemingly extraneous to this particular accident. It is as LOMCEVAK says:

This Special Bulletin is published to highlight findings of the AAIB investigation regarding
ejection seat safety and the maintenance of ex-military jet aircraft, and to assist the Civil
Aviation Authority in its ‘Review of UK Civil Air Displays’ announced on 9 September 2015.
A final report will be published in due course.

As such, it is pretty much irrelevant and sheds no more light on what happened this time.

MPN11,

There is no sinister significance to the fact that this bulletin majors on the escape system. It is simply that the part of the investigation dealing with that equipment has reached a point where conclusions can be drawn and recommendations made. The AAIB does not casually sit on one set of findings just because other areas have not reached that stage. So it is normal to release bulletin at various stages of the investigation. This area was more straightforward than some and is, in some respects more pressing than certain others in that it deals with an area which could have repercussions in current flying activity - groundings notwithstanding.

All of that does not mean that ALL other aspects of the investigation are not progressing. As for your statement,

you are way off the mark and, frankly, out of order. The work must continue in all areas. How would you know that a problem with the escape system hadn't been a contributory factor to the accident until that area had been fully investigated? There are other areas which are currently being worked that may equally disappoint you, or maybe they will prove to be cosequential. We won't know until the work on them is complete.

You seem to think that there is some magic thread in the investigation that could be followed to give you the answers to the questions that you think are most pressing. There is very seldom such a path and you can probably safely think that the bit you're clearly particularly interested in will come at or very near the end. Apart from anything else, the title of this thread and the date it was started may give you a clue as to why your questions cannot yet be answered.


Traffic_is_er_Was,

It is not irrelevant to the investigation as a whole. As I said to MPN, until this part was completed it was unknown if it was a factor. The same will go for the next couple of areas.

Thanks for those responses, gentlemen. I am enlightened.

The Gnats don't have MB seats, so are not affected by the MB decision specifically.....but I would imagine the Sea Vixen, G-CVIX would be, which you didn't include.

I seem to remember some time ago Boz Robinson put a civilianised Gnat down in a field with minor injuries,or was it a different incident involving Boz and a Gnat??

FAStoat: Gnat at North Weald.

XR721 Jan. 1966. Fatal outcome thanks to the tree(s), but a landing that was said to be impossible.

ISTR the canopy was prevented from jettisoning by a bolt fitted incorrectly.

PM

My impression of this bulletin is the basic question of was it 'airworthy' at the time of the accident. This appears to suggest it wasn't as per seat and engine issues. These had been apparent for some time according to the info but the CAA continued to take the money and issue a permit to fly . My impression is this is pointing the finger at the CAA for these issues , not the operator. The ejection seat issue is a bad one in that the CAA has never got to grips with what is a specialised trade in the services so it isn't properly covered in the engineer licencing system , treating it the same as the tiny cartridges fitted in a fire bottle or overwing slide system on an airliner. Don't think this is unique as i have a friend who set up a business doing this in NZ and is travelling worldwide to carry out work as a result of his air force qualifications. Think the lawyers will be rubbing their hands as even though probably no effect on the accident the airworthiness issue is a very basic one.

Oh, here we go again! Why should they be? Unless this is later found to have a bearing on the accident, all this does is to highlight shortcomings in a civil aviation niche, which will now be sorted - one way or another.

No need to be too gleeful about potential prosecutions. AAIB does not apportion blame.

The CAA made it clear in its press release yesterday that from an engine perspective the aircraft was airworthy:

"We have received the AAIB's latest special bulletin from its ongoing investigation into the Shoreham Air Show accident and will study it in detail. We will continue to fully co-operate with the AAIB investigation and provide expertise and advice.

The AAIB Special Bulletin does not contain any information regarding the cause of the Shoreham Air Display accident.

The CAA is continuing its own review of Air Show safety which is due to be published early in the New Year and our thoughts remain with all those affected by this tragic accident.

In relation to the validity of the alternative means of compliance (AMOC) for ongoing maintenance of the aircraft, we have already informed the AAIB that this was in place and was valid at the time of the accident.

Work under the alternative means of compliance was carried out in January 2014 with the next inspection due in January 2016 making the organisation and the aircraft compliant with the Mandatory Permit Directive."

The lawyers will/may be having a field day as some insurance company will now say as the aircraft should not have been flying in their opinion due to the out of date parts fitted in the seat - we will not by paying.
Whether or not the out of date parts had any bearing on the accident will be immaterial to them.

^^

Idle bar room speculation. Suddenly lawyers and insurance companies are all villains once more. Childish drivel. FYI for the future, the final decision on whether or not and insurance company pays out, does not rest with the insurance company (unless the beneficiary accepts the rejected claim), it would rest with a law court....on no!! it's them damn villainous lawyers at it again.

Spot on, TOFO.

There seems to be another sudden rush of people capable of fortelling the outcomes before the AAIB have even completed the information gathering phase of the investigation.

I think if there is any legal hand-rubbing to be done, it will centre on the organisation and supervision of air displays.

The latest bulletin highlights an embarrassing issue regarding airworthiness oversight. Perhaps the CAA needs to take a close look at itself and the manner in which it continues to audit. Legal wrangling? I think not, unless there is a definite airworthiness related causal issue still to be found in the pile of twisted metal.

Agreed cows, and I said as such in the original thread. The relevant findings and recommendations will relate to the venue itself and I suspect the granting and maintenance of PDAs, in particular for ex-mil jets in private hands.