|
|
And he was permitted to carry out public displays after that!?
|
Very good point Sharpend. Hope your delightful young wife, aircraft and flash car are still OK, in that order. PDR
|
I cannot claim any particular expertise, and certainly not in aerobatics in high-performance jet aeroplanes, but I do have some experience of "congnitive impairment".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow. The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle. Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself. It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced. One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them. A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all. That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault". |
Originally Posted by Bravo Alpha One
(Post 10411496)
I cannot claim any particular expertise, and certainly not in aerobatics in high-performance jet aeroplanes, but I do have some experience of "congnitive impairment".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow. The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle. Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself. It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced. One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them. A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all. That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault". Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster. |
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster. |
Originally Posted by Air Snoop
(Post 10411600)
This is all very true and the jury probably returned the correct verdict in response to the evidence as they heard it. However, unlike in Scotland where a third verdict of 'Not Proven' is available, the English verdict of 'Not Guilty' has the broader meaning of either the accused didn't do it or the case against him/her was not totally convincing. I'm a pilot so legal beagles please tell me if I'm talking scribble.
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster. This incident was a tragedy for everyone involved, but I doubt AH intended to crash that day. It's natural for victims to want to blame someone [same with fatal illnesses] and I do wonder what sort of posts we would be reading if AH had not miraculously survived [or indeed if he had ejected and survived - IF he ever was inside the seat's envelope]. |
Leaving aside the technical issues I think a bit of fear of the media has a role in this. A dreadful and spectacular accident causes several peoples death in the most appalling manner . even so in English law manslaughter cases can be very hard to prove and i think that is the heart of the matter. The reasonable doubt which smart lawyers can introduce into many scenarios puts the conviction at risk but if he had been charged with a lesser offence then the mail and Express and the rest of the gutter press would be baying for the blood of the CPS for being weak and selling out bereaved families
While Uk has a decent legal system it still has many flaws (how much money you have is still too important) as we often see when a large company causes the death of employees or passengers or member of the general public no one ends up getting charged but if you operate fairground machinery-or ina recent case a bouncy castle heaven help you. |
An innocent question, gentlemen. So if the pilot experienced TIA or CI that rather brings into question his Medical category. Or has that been covered already? Did the ‘stress/excitement’ of displaying the Hunter actually contribute to the sad events that followed? |
Originally Posted by Bravo Alpha One
(Post 10411496)
Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent')
|
The pilot in this instance has been found not guilty in a court of law of the charges laid against him. I have read the AAIB report in some detail but clearly only the press coverage of the court proceedings. Despite the pilots apparent lack of recall of the events that took place, it seems that his defence counsel has made a very convincing case for cognitive impairment which whilst unproven in an absolute sense was nonetheless suitably convincing for the jury. Quite at what point this impairment took place or may have taken place will remain unknown yet it would seem that mistakes were made by the pilot at an early stage of the display which may have led to a point at which such impairment may have limited the pilots ability to rectify the situation into which he had placed himself and his aircraft. Surely the recognition of this 'condition' may mean that the CAA will be forced to make even further stringent moves against display flying particuarly involving high speed fast jet aircraft whether or not they fall into the vintage category. A fear that future incidents will be blamed upon cognitive impairment as a standard defence against prosecution may prove unacceptable to the regulatory authorities. Much as I admire the abilities of pilots which are immeasurably greater than my own, I have always harboured the belief that some display flying utilises aircraft carrying out manoeuvres for which they were not designed and as such little room for error; I fear their days may be even more numberered than they already were. |
It will be interesting to see what findings come out of the Inquests.
|
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10411647)
An innocent question, gentlemen. So if the pilot experienced TIA or CI that rather brings into question his Medical category. Or has that been covered already? Did the ‘stress/excitement’ of displaying the Hunter actually contribute to the sad events that followed? |
This 'cognitive impairment' would appear to be a massive can of worms not just for display flying, but for any type of flying. As AvMed courses have long drilled into us, the human body is not designed for the things we do to it in the air. Displays are an extreme example, but even routine operations are full of potential for illusion, error and misjudgement. I had an instructor who reckoned that the successful pilot was someone who left the smallest proportion of their mental faculties on the runway.
If 'impairment' of the sort that leads to flying below minima and missing gate heights is considered grounds for acquittal from criminal charges, it rather undermines the idea that a pilot could be held to account for their actions. Some degree of 'impairment' can always be argued. Besides, isn't being aware of the potential for impairment, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate, an essential part of piloting? Just the act of beginning that display was arguably reckless given the currency and experience issues. |
Running in below ‘aerobatic’ minima. It’s my understanding that this is legal, as the definition of an aerobatic manoeuvre is not reached until one is above the 500’. There are plenty of examples of that. Those who ignore the possibility of TIA and condemn AH for recklessness and demanding his head on a plate are misguided. Taking the example of TIA/stroke, thinking of three examples of pilots I have known personally, one died, one lost his medical and the other is a current airline captain. BravoAlphaOne has it summed up correctly I believe. |
Thanks, all, it’s a new can of worms for defence of anything you might do in everyday life! |
I think Bravo Alpha one pretty much nails it. I mentioned it to someone who had the same issue and it fits. Can we please put away the flaming torches and pitchforks?
|
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10411705)
This 'cognitive impairment' would appear to be a massive can of worms not just for display flying, but for any type of flying. .
Bravo Alpha One highlighted another aspect of these same issues. For those who would like to prevent, inhibit or reduce aviation these are yet more sticks they can use to beat us with. Depressing. |
https://www.flyingwithoutfear.com/16038/
Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks. Class action offing? |
"Flying without fear".?
It is fear that keeps one alive. If you have no fear you won't last long, especially outside the rigid confines, of airline flying for e.g. I have a fear of flying into the ground, when not intending to land. I have a fear of bad weather etc., etc. |
Originally Posted by Brian W May
(Post 10411803)
https://www.flyingwithoutfear.com/16038/
Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks. Class action offing? Perhaps you'd like to lynch the man. But luckily the English justice system doesn't allow for that. |
CI or Plain Error?
Lightning nails it for me. One cannot rule out the ‘mini stroke’ thesis so CI cannot be disproved therefore legally only one conclusion to the charge. But.... First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision. Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t. Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ; understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied; and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to... For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding. standing by for the flak..... |
How was his defence paid for?Presumably the Hunter was insured for accidents etc?
|
Originally Posted by stickstirrer
(Post 10411900)
Lightning nails it for me. One cannot rule out the ‘mini stroke’ thesis so CI cannot be disproved therefore legally only one conclusion to the charge. But.... First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision. Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t. Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ; understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied; and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to... For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding. standing by for the flak..... |
Originally Posted by oldpax
(Post 10411930)
How was his defence paid for?Presumably the Hunter was insured for accidents etc?
Arkroyal. Ditto. |
Originally Posted by Bravo Alpha One
(Post 10411628)
Indeed, as I understand it, but in England the court can only consider the charge the accused is indicted with. "Not Guilty" doesn't mean "innocent", it means the prosecution has failed to prove that specific charge. Usually, the CPS will bring the charge they are most confident they can prove. If they fail to do so, because there is a reasonable doubt, the accused is Not Gulity.
This incident was a tragedy for everyone involved, but I doubt AH intended to crash that day. It's natural for victims to want to blame someone [same with fatal illnesses] and I do wonder what sort of posts we would be reading if AH had not miraculously survived [or indeed if he had ejected and survived - IF he ever was inside the seat's envelope]. |
Originally Posted by stickstirrer
(Post 10411900)
Lightning nails it for me. One cannot rule out the ‘mini stroke’ thesis so CI cannot be disproved therefore legally only one conclusion to the charge. But.... First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision. Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t. Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ; understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied; and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to... For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding. standing by for the flak..... |
A question about use of flap.
My (incomplete) reading of the vast report suggests flap on the Hunter could be deployed to 38' up to 300Kts, above that speed it progressively stows aerodynamically but can cause slippage of trim clutches suffiicient to give control problems (I'm paraphrasing here). Why then would AH have flown the bent loop with flap deployed? Do we know when flap was deployed? His entry speed gate was 350Kts, apparently well above the limiting speed quoted. Or am I misunderstanding something? The test pilot who researched the bent loop also referred to flaps stating various 'notches' selected so this is presumably normal but no mention (that I found) made of the speed limitation. Is flap avaiable incrementally between 'notches' or is ir notch one or two only? If you decided to fly the manoeuvre slower in order to make it more compact knowing the display area was limited in size might you extemporise by using flap and a lower speed? Thoughts? |
Arkroyal
I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. |
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10411705)
This 'cognitive impairment' would appear to be a massive can of worms not just for display flying, but for any type of flying. As AvMed courses have long drilled into us, the human body is not designed for the things we do to it in the air. Displays are an extreme example, but even routine operations are full of potential for illusion, error and misjudgement. I had an instructor who reckoned that the successful pilot was someone who left the smallest proportion of their mental faculties on the runway.
If 'impairment' of the sort that leads to flying below minima and missing gate heights is considered grounds for acquittal from criminal charges, it rather undermines the idea that a pilot could be held to account for their actions. Some degree of 'impairment' can always be argued. Besides, isn't being aware of the potential for impairment, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate, an essential part of piloting? Just the act of beginning that display was arguably reckless given the currency and experience issues. |
Stick stirrer. Thank you for that well reasoned and clarifying (for me) post. A laymans view: Given an inability to 'prove or disprove' the TI theory it seems a 'not guilty' verdict was is the only one possible. I guess Mr Hill will be the only one who MIGHT know for sure. |
meleagertoo , the Hunter has 8 notches of flap. 2 notches corresponds to 23 deg flap and 4 notched corresponds to 38 deg flap. More than 4 notches is unlikely to be used for anything except landing.
It was very common indeed to fly loops at lower speed using 2 notches - all students were taught this. Also in ACM we often flew with full power, one hand on the control column and the other on the flap selector as judicious use of flap helped instantaneous pitch rate. |
If you decided to fly the manoeuvre slower in order to make it more compact knowing the display area was limited in size might you extemporise by using flap and a lower speed? |
Well said Stick stirrer!
As I said before, 40 hours on a FJ like the Hunter is not enough to perform at any show. The derry turn in a JP at Southport looked very hairy indeed. The CAA has a lot to answer. |
Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks. |
As I said before, 40 hours on a FJ like the Hunter is not enough to perform at any show. The derry turn in a JP at Southport looked very hairy indeed. The CAA has a lot to answer. The JP at Southend was also very poorly flow, but that manoeuvre was a Canadian Break - not a Derry Turn! |
Do we know when flap was deployed? https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7f60c57c64.png |
Maxred
I’m not sure I can wholeheartedly agree with your post. I agree it was an accident. AH never set out to hurt anyone. However, I don’t consider him blameless. I honestly don’t know what outcome I think would be just in this case. I don’t think I can get upset at people for being angry at AH any more than I can at others for getting upset at the first category of people. If the Defense successfully argued the CI case then well done to them. It clearly hasn’t provided the desired closure for many people though. My second observation regards the quoted parameters at the top of the loop. Let me state that I have never flown the Hunter and have never been a display pilot. Most people know my background though. If the 2600’ and 100 knots I have read above are correct, my mind is well and truly boggled. I realise a Hawk and Hunter cannot be compared directly but I find it hard to imagine ANY fast jet can complete a loop from that height and speed. I am happy to be proven wrong. From what I remember of the fateful day there was no low cloud base to contend with. So why not ease the first half of a loop in order to gain more height and allow for a relaxed second half. I know that display pilots can be purists at times but in this instance (displaying a legacy aircraft with limited experience on type) the crowd won’t notice or care if the loop is a little larger than the aircraft is capable of. They just want to see the graceful swooping and hear the engine noise. Just my two penn’th of course. BV |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 10412528)
I know that display pilots can be purists at times but in this instance (displaying a legacy aircraft with limited experience on type) the crowd won’t notice or care if the loop is a little larger than the aircraft is capable of. They just want to see the graceful swooping and hear the engine noise. It was interesting by way of comparison to see that cockpit clip posted a few pages back of the Hunter display by the late Mark Hanna (I seem to recall Mark was on the last TWU Hunter course?) |
It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:01. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.