well apart from the draken, viggen, me 262, b52, skyhawk, phantom etc at RIAT and some others ?

A lot of recent comments imply the pilot denied making a balls of the manoeuvre and by being found not guilty somehow managed to persuade a jury he didn't. The truth is he admitted his error so why keep going on about it? I agree with the sentiments of Bob Viking, but also think they apply to the likes of the CAA who made very serious errors. And the AAIB's report is really lacking.

Not quite... He conceded that an error occurred but denied responsibility or culpability for it. I don't class that as "admitting your error".

Well, the Swedish HF aircraft don't really get booked for UK because of the CAA restrictions, the 262 is operated by a mil contractor although civ reg'd and again, slightly different, plus it doesn't do aero's anyway......and the others you mention are not civilian owned and operated, so not part of this discussion.
I guess you meant Sea Hawk rather than Skyhawk? and the NavyWings Sea Hawk is straight wing, not swept and hasn't flown for over 10 years now, although NavyWings are hoping the engine issues can be resolved to enable it to fly again.......but, I have my doubts about that.

So when does a fatal crash become a bad fatal crash?
Many pilots have fatally crashed. The pilot at Shoreham killed people on the ground. So why does Shoreham make the pilot a worse pilot than all the others? Is it just a case of what was under him at the time? Or just unlucky to have survived?
I'm not trying to argue for or against any pilot.

DTR2
 

Have you read back through the thread? Maybe try a recap and you should find the answers.

BV

It is called 'outcome bias'.

I wouldn't bother wasting your time reading through this thread; it is full of nonsense written by 'keyboard warriors' biased by preconceived ideas, hearsay and snapshot press reports. Read the full AAIB report instead and you will learn that there is a lot more to this terrible disaster. It is a superb report although it does seem shallow on 'human factors' which were explored in far more substantive detail during the court case.

I suspect he means the Top Aces A-4N, which appeared at RIAT in 2022 and is due again this year. Although I think that's static display only

Thank you. I didn't know he'd at first denied making an error, then conceded he did. I thought he admitted it up front but couldn't explain his actions except through his medical defence.
Either way, making an error doesn't require you to plead guilty.



Can a report be 'superb' if it lacks analysis of the facts it presents? If the AAIB aren't meant to do that, who is? Or is it left to the prosecution and defence?

If I may please;
Although true that any thread attempting explanation for an event such as Shoreham will attract a wide range of comment, I must say that some of what I've read here has merit and was obviously well intended, my own comment included of course.
In fact, if one reads the airshow industry standard text on airshow accidents, ( Anatomy of Airshow Accidents by Des Barker and distributed through ICAS world wide) my comment on the Shoreham incident from the display pilot's perspective can be read on page 525. I as well covered Shoreham in some detail for World Airshow News. That report I believe was posted here in this thread.
I mention these things not to be pedantic but rather to simply point out that one will find both good and bad in any open discussion on incidents such as the Shoreham crash.
About Mr Hill;
We will probably never know the exact truth about what constituted the mental process in play during those few seconds at Hill's top energy gate when he made the decision to continue instead of abort. There are several variables in the gate equation (AGL altitude, true airspeed, density altitude.......etc) and any one of these or combination of these miscalculated could have been a factor. All we have is the visual result and of course Mr Hill's testimony.
I can tell you that my experience indicates that in many of these incidents the real truth remains with the pilot involved.
In summation I will say that I have found this thread "interesting" at least. Some of the comment from RAF pilots with test and display background was quite factual and pertinent.
Of course there are always those commenting whose experience is shall we say..less factual.
Anyway, I hope I have managed to help clear the air just a bit on the issue.
Dudley Henriques

to be pedantic the comment was don’t see vintage jets - well you do and I did mean Skyhawk as in Douglas A-4 Skyhawk

Having watched the documentary, I think a lot of people at Shoreham Airport/Gatwick will be very happy with it. AH is an easy target and they went for him good and proper. Barring a very brief comment from one of the bereaved relatives at the end, there was little acknowledgment that there was any wider involvement to be considered.

I have no display or high performance background but from a safety perspective, a display aircraft crashing on the runway centreline immediately outside the airfield boundary was a foreseeable event. While the pilot was responsible for the crash, he was significantly less responsible for the large number of people under his flight path. Nor was this the first fatal accident at the Shoreham Airshow. I would reserve my anger more for the display organisers and the regulator for allowing a foreseeable event to cause so much carnage.

From the mid-90's onwards the volume of vintage jets being displayed publically in private hands grew steadily year on year. Arguably also steadily increasing in performance and complexity, including JPs, L39s, Venom's, Vampires the Sea Vixen, Hunter's, Gnat's, Canberra's and of course the Vulcan.

For the layman, casual observer and aviation enthusiast this presented some amazing opportunities to continue to watch often long retired and iconic types in their natural environment.

All good excepting for the fact the rules and regs governing public displays of such exotica completely failed to adapt to this changing environment which effectively meant that environment became increasingly "permissive". Unfortunately, human nature is such that rules and regs, even in extreme and high risk environments, will be pushed to, and sometimes beyond, their intended boundaries. 99 times out of 100 there is no material impact, nothing really really bad happens and everyone enjoys the spectacle.

My point is that what happened at Shoreham was a long time in the making, all the warning signs were there, just waiting for the Swiss Cheese holes to line up to enable the disaster scenario. I'm in no way defending AH's actions on that day, however to place all the blame on any one individual is clearly wrong. I've not re-read the report recently, but my abiding memory was that it didn't really address those factors relating to the "inevitability" of such an event, due to those regulatory shortcomings. I also personally felt the subsequent, and still largely in place, heavy handed clamp down on vintage jet display flying was a tacit admission and acknowledgement of those regulatory failings.

One of those tragic events that should never have been allowed to happen, but equally where no single individual bears sole responsibility, in my opinion.

Except it wasn't even close to crashing on the centreline of the runway or the display axis, more like close to an angle of 45deg off the display axis.

BV clearly meant civilian operated by his comment, which was obvious to all being in relation to the whole subject of this thread, as was my reply, which he clearly also understood also.
You are the only one that went off half cocked and mentioned stuff irrelevant to displays in the UK (and that includes the A4 Skyhawk, as there are none and never will be any privately owned Scooters in the UK, and the civvie registered ones in Germany on mil contract equally won't be doing a display here either)

I think the CAA having pushed the display line further out is a poor ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. How much more safe is a more distant display line?
It's really easy to bust - diving toward the crowd and turning hard onto the display line has many holes in a lump of cheese lining up!
They needed to ban low level airshow aerobatics, hard maneuvering and close formation. not try and make a sterile box around aircraft doing (potentially) unsafe things.
BBMF and the displays of the Shuttleworth collection are pretty good examples of how to safely display aeroplanes I'd suggest
Also, personally I'd find it more fun and much considerably safer for aircraft to make close and low straight and level passes with benign and prescribed turns to get back onto centreline.
I'm struck that modern fast jet displays are just high G routines often very close to the ground - literally a moment of "cognitive impairment" eats through a few hundred yards of safety space pretty quickly I imagine
I think the power and speed of the aircraft can be demonstrated in a much more benign way I'd suggest.
Yes I've seen a few smoking holes at airshows..

That is why military display flying has had such rigorous workup, qualification, supervision and currency requirements for a long time now - much longer ago than Shoreham. And that stringency is why the consensus opinion among military fast jet pilot colleagues is that poorly-supervised, low-currency, multi-type pilots like AH had (and continue to have) no business conducting low level aerobatics anywhere, let alone in front of a crowd. Lax regulation and organisation certainly contributed to the outcome, but in my view no more absolve AH of responsibility than an unrestricted autobahn speed limit absolves one who causes a fatal accident by driving beyond their capability.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS

The RAF fly 9 of them from time to time.

Hat, coat, door............ ;)

Often only seven!