AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mothminor, I understood that risk to be mitigated by the 40 MPH limit.
The lights on green was to prevent a build up of cars.
Was it not the (closed off) right turn lane signals that were bagged?
The lights on green was to prevent a build up of cars.
Was it not the (closed off) right turn lane signals that were bagged?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Ix
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I truly feel for the families and friends who lost loved ones in this tragic accident, and can fully understand the obvious anger and frustration behind some of the posts here, having lost personal friends and colleagues in aviation accidents myself.
At the end of the day we need to understand what happened. As an ex QFI and trainer in several aviation outfits, I know how easy it is to say " you did this wrong you did that wrong" and list a hundred points that could have been done better. But that achieves very little. You need to understand "why" things happened to learn and prevent them happening again.
In this case the AAIB have produced an excellent factual document, and identified many possible contributory reasons with recommendations for change, but for no doubt good reason they have refrained from stating the Why" about the final manoeuvre. The AAIB deal in facts, not speculation.
That AH got it wrong is not in dispute. The question is Why? And with the greatest respect to the majority of people on this forum, unless you have displayed such machines, you cannot begin to comprehend the issues involved.
It is easy to point the finger of blame, demand public lynchings and that he is hung out to dry, but from where I am sitting there are too many unanswered questions to say "AH you are culpably negligent.".
Having been in the display circuit myself I have zero tolerance for cowboys, but in my professional opinion using the data on the report, the lead up to and the final manoeuvre do not make any airshow or JP or Hunter sense. AH would have had to have been stark raving bonkers to deliberately fly the machine as it was flown.
If this does come to a court case, I hope that informed facts are presented and that it doesn't become a legal lynching by a silver tongued silk... Otherwise we will learn very little for the future and it will destroy the "Just Culture" which presently exists in the UK aviation world, spearheaded by the AAIB.
At the end of the day we need to understand what happened. As an ex QFI and trainer in several aviation outfits, I know how easy it is to say " you did this wrong you did that wrong" and list a hundred points that could have been done better. But that achieves very little. You need to understand "why" things happened to learn and prevent them happening again.
In this case the AAIB have produced an excellent factual document, and identified many possible contributory reasons with recommendations for change, but for no doubt good reason they have refrained from stating the Why" about the final manoeuvre. The AAIB deal in facts, not speculation.
That AH got it wrong is not in dispute. The question is Why? And with the greatest respect to the majority of people on this forum, unless you have displayed such machines, you cannot begin to comprehend the issues involved.
It is easy to point the finger of blame, demand public lynchings and that he is hung out to dry, but from where I am sitting there are too many unanswered questions to say "AH you are culpably negligent.".
Having been in the display circuit myself I have zero tolerance for cowboys, but in my professional opinion using the data on the report, the lead up to and the final manoeuvre do not make any airshow or JP or Hunter sense. AH would have had to have been stark raving bonkers to deliberately fly the machine as it was flown.
If this does come to a court case, I hope that informed facts are presented and that it doesn't become a legal lynching by a silver tongued silk... Otherwise we will learn very little for the future and it will destroy the "Just Culture" which presently exists in the UK aviation world, spearheaded by the AAIB.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the AAIB has a lot of in house experience, they rely on outside experts to analyse and test specific components and also to provide expert commentary as to human factors.
Those same experts can also be employed by the police or any other party to provide expert testimony in a court case.
Just because the AAIB report cannot be used to assign blame, that does not mean that the contributors to the report cannot be compelled to give evidence in a criminal or civil trial. That includes members of the AAIB team if a judge rules that their testamony is necessary for a complete understanding of the matters being considered.
Those same experts can also be employed by the police or any other party to provide expert testimony in a court case.
Just because the AAIB report cannot be used to assign blame, that does not mean that the contributors to the report cannot be compelled to give evidence in a criminal or civil trial. That includes members of the AAIB team if a judge rules that their testamony is necessary for a complete understanding of the matters being considered.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk of traffic lights, what utter rubbish ! If any sort of warning lights are to be considered, then consider this. Are gates for aerobatics not a form of stop /go junction. Anyone with even a an hour or two of aerobatics training would have known the purpose of escape gates. In the sense of traffic lights he just jumped the red. Look at the photo posted by Dave Reid. See the traffic lights, look at the inferno, it is 980 degrees c in there. Dante comes nowhere near it. For all those poor souls engulfed in it,it is like napalm. Death descended out of a clear blue sky to claim them in the most horrific way. What sort of an error was it. I`d have thought most of those who lost their dear ones would consider it was gross. Is this a case involving the public interest, I`d say yes it is. The pilot has lost his memory of the event. How could any normal human being live with such a memory. Denial is the only way I`d have thought. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I`d add I do not known the victims or their families. My sympathies remain with them. Sika hulmuta talks about silver "tongued silks" and "just culture" and hopes it will not become a legal lynching. Why, because we need to learn. What have we learned from this one. Simply this, some bloke goofed, big time. So my response to Sika is go tell that to the marines.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Sika --
Ha! I've never had the innate aptitude. The desire, yes 
My point is this: Are you saying the pilot was "stark raving bonkers" or that his flying was not deliberate? Or Flight 9525? You left a hanging pregnant pause. What are you really saying?
You obviously have never flown the Hunter and I'm not about to attempt to give you a fast jet conversion on this forum.
My point is this: Are you saying the pilot was "stark raving bonkers" or that his flying was not deliberate? Or Flight 9525? You left a hanging pregnant pause. What are you really saying?
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I just ask some of the people on here who HAVE flown the Hunter; is it at all possible to be flying one and mistake it for a JP, or are they very very different [not just from a performance point of view, but e.g. cockpit layout]?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Ix
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lemain,
OK for clarification, I have no reason to doubt his competency as he was legally authorised as fit and able to fly the flight. His paperwork was in order. And I do not believe he was anything other than deliberate and professional in approach if you follow his flight profile up to just before the loop, and certainly not stark raving bonkers!.
His profile was highly accurate up until a point just prior to the pull up. Then the pattern changes. Dramatically. And the manoeuvre, as has been pointed out by many others was marginal at least at many points, with several apparent poor decisions made. He was more or less on axis (20 deg ish by my reading?) at the start of the loop then skews off 60 or so degrees. A lot anyway. Why?
The thrust changes are strange and nonsensical to put it politely. Bluntly, fast jet flying is largely about energy control. As an experienced fast jet pilot he would have had that hammered into him from day one, regardless of type. And in a manouvre like this you pump as much energy into the system as you can to start with, then mediate it later.
All I'm saying is there is a lot unexplained in the report. I really don't believe he deliberately did anything wrong or iffy, or is the cowboy others have suggested.... but it ended in disaster and the accident has, and continues to cause a huge amount of pain and hurt.
We need to cognitively understand why, and not be driven by natural emotional desires and jump to conclusions to "hang the guilty bastard" if we are to prevent a similar future accident.
OK for clarification, I have no reason to doubt his competency as he was legally authorised as fit and able to fly the flight. His paperwork was in order. And I do not believe he was anything other than deliberate and professional in approach if you follow his flight profile up to just before the loop, and certainly not stark raving bonkers!.
His profile was highly accurate up until a point just prior to the pull up. Then the pattern changes. Dramatically. And the manoeuvre, as has been pointed out by many others was marginal at least at many points, with several apparent poor decisions made. He was more or less on axis (20 deg ish by my reading?) at the start of the loop then skews off 60 or so degrees. A lot anyway. Why?
The thrust changes are strange and nonsensical to put it politely. Bluntly, fast jet flying is largely about energy control. As an experienced fast jet pilot he would have had that hammered into him from day one, regardless of type. And in a manouvre like this you pump as much energy into the system as you can to start with, then mediate it later.
All I'm saying is there is a lot unexplained in the report. I really don't believe he deliberately did anything wrong or iffy, or is the cowboy others have suggested.... but it ended in disaster and the accident has, and continues to cause a huge amount of pain and hurt.
We need to cognitively understand why, and not be driven by natural emotional desires and jump to conclusions to "hang the guilty bastard" if we are to prevent a similar future accident.
For me, the conclusions in the report starting p195 sum it up. The pilot and aircraft were not in breach of those regulations and/or requirement for air displays existing at the time. Those have subsequently proved to be inadequate and will be changed (or already have been). I suspect the majority of the legal challenge will be laid at the door of the organisations which laid down those regulations and requirements which have turned out to be inadequate.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cynic in me suspects that the majority of the legal challenge will be laid at the door of the organisations which are perceived to have the most money.
In light of some of the comments in this thread about this unfortunate man's possible exposure to criminal prosecution I undertook some research. I should make it plain that my experience is in a non-UK - but nonetheless common law - jurisdiction (Australia). Before anyone starts flaming, I practice in criminal law, not personal injury, and have a lot of experience on both sides.
Unlike where I practice, there does not seem to be an offence of "dangerous operation of an aircraft" in the UK. Here, this offence lumps aircraft in with motor vehicles, and does not require any reckless or negligent behaviour. Rather, all that is required is a state of affairs that is - viewed objectively - dangerous. Momentary innatention may amount to dangerous operation, but there has to be flying that is far below what would be expected of a competent, careful pilot. I can only recall one aviation conviction for this offence in the last 30 years, and it involved an ultralight pilot buzzing his estranged wife's home.
I may be wrong, but I did not find any UK equivalent that applies to aircraft - only motor vehicles (ie Road Traffic Act 1988 (UK)).
There used to be an offence of dangerous flying in section 81 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (UK), but that provision was repealed. I haven't found a replacement for it other than in the Air Navigation Order (UK), which contains a prohibition against reckless or negligent flying that causes or permits danger to any person or property. An offence against that provision would require proof of recklessness or negligence.
Then there is manslaughter. The test for the offence of manslaughter by way of criminal negligence is high, and is the same here as it is in the UK - what is required is recklessness involving grave moral guilt, ie something that goes beyond the mere payment of compensation for personal injury/loss and which shows such disregard for the lives and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and be deserving of punishment.
Proving criminal negligence or recklessness beyond reasonable doubt is often difficult. Offences such as "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle" were introduced because juries were notoriously reluctant to convict in vehicular manslaughter cases.
Further, anyone reading the AAIB report should bear in mind that not all of the evidence identified in it may be admissible in a criminal court - particularly things said by the pilot to investigators.
Having said all that, there will inevitably be an inquest. Experience shows that Coroners may not uncritically accept the conclusions of accident investigators.
Unlike where I practice, there does not seem to be an offence of "dangerous operation of an aircraft" in the UK. Here, this offence lumps aircraft in with motor vehicles, and does not require any reckless or negligent behaviour. Rather, all that is required is a state of affairs that is - viewed objectively - dangerous. Momentary innatention may amount to dangerous operation, but there has to be flying that is far below what would be expected of a competent, careful pilot. I can only recall one aviation conviction for this offence in the last 30 years, and it involved an ultralight pilot buzzing his estranged wife's home.
I may be wrong, but I did not find any UK equivalent that applies to aircraft - only motor vehicles (ie Road Traffic Act 1988 (UK)).
There used to be an offence of dangerous flying in section 81 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (UK), but that provision was repealed. I haven't found a replacement for it other than in the Air Navigation Order (UK), which contains a prohibition against reckless or negligent flying that causes or permits danger to any person or property. An offence against that provision would require proof of recklessness or negligence.
Then there is manslaughter. The test for the offence of manslaughter by way of criminal negligence is high, and is the same here as it is in the UK - what is required is recklessness involving grave moral guilt, ie something that goes beyond the mere payment of compensation for personal injury/loss and which shows such disregard for the lives and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and be deserving of punishment.
Proving criminal negligence or recklessness beyond reasonable doubt is often difficult. Offences such as "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle" were introduced because juries were notoriously reluctant to convict in vehicular manslaughter cases.
Further, anyone reading the AAIB report should bear in mind that not all of the evidence identified in it may be admissible in a criminal court - particularly things said by the pilot to investigators.
Having said all that, there will inevitably be an inquest. Experience shows that Coroners may not uncritically accept the conclusions of accident investigators.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mr Angry -- Post #841 [medical] I've checked again through the report and I cannot find that reference. I've read the report twice, I guess I must have made an assumption. Sorry to mislead. Other posters on this thread have raised the question of correction of vision.
Hi Sika --
But it's the thrust that imparts the energy which can either be stored as kinetic, or potential or just be lost by drag. You then say:
I don't understand your connection between thrust changes and attitude changes. We don't seem to have any record of thrust other than the turbine revs from audio recordings.
Hi Sika --
Bluntly, fast jet flying is largely about energy control.
He was more or less on axis (20 deg ish by my reading?) at the start of the loop then skews off 60 or so degrees. A lot anyway. Why?
The thrust changes are strange and nonsensical to put it politely.
The thrust changes are strange and nonsensical to put it politely.