AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two Hawk jets were said to have touched during an “opposition manoeuvre” in which one aircraft flies like a mirror image of another.
One of the jets’ rudders was damaged and Flt Lt Mike Ling, 30, was forced to eject and parachute to safety from a height of around 1,000ft (300m).
He suffered a dislocated shoulder and cuts and bruises and was taken away for treatment on a stretcher and in a neck brace as a precaution.
Flt Lt Ling, who flies under the call sign Red 6, was last night in the Venizelos state hospital, in the city of Heraklion, and his injuries were described as “not serious”.
The pilot is married and lives with his wife Natalie in Biggin Hill, south east London. The pilot of the other jet was Flt Lt David Montenegro.
Two Red Arrows jets collide in mid-air - Telegraph
One of the jets’ rudders was damaged and Flt Lt Mike Ling, 30, was forced to eject and parachute to safety from a height of around 1,000ft (300m).
He suffered a dislocated shoulder and cuts and bruises and was taken away for treatment on a stretcher and in a neck brace as a precaution.
Flt Lt Ling, who flies under the call sign Red 6, was last night in the Venizelos state hospital, in the city of Heraklion, and his injuries were described as “not serious”.
The pilot is married and lives with his wife Natalie in Biggin Hill, south east London. The pilot of the other jet was Flt Lt David Montenegro.
Two Red Arrows jets collide in mid-air - Telegraph
Moderator
A difference between auto racing on a private track, or boxing in a private ring, is that aviation is regulated by national regulation. The airspace is public, as well as some of the ground and people below. Some aviation regulations place considerable responsibility upon the pilot to fly the aircraft so as to prevent an unsafe situation. Airshow flying not only would not be exempt from these regulations, but would invoke a few more.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See this on the BBC website.
The CAA states that directors of air shows "should consider imposing minimum height restrictions over local sensitive and congested areas".
But, in its advice to pilots, it remarks that the Hunter "has little difficulty sustaining, or regaining speed and/or altitude during a low-level display". The CAA also defines the loop as among the simplest aerobatic manoeuvres.
What safety rules govern air shows? - BBC News
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I am not sure I agree with your first analogy. If a racing team said to their driver, 'take that car out, the brakes are no good but I am sure you can handle it' and the driver did so knowingly then isn't there case of negligence, perhaps criminal negligence? (I don't know what the difference is).
I am not suggesting that is the case here, just I don't think your analogy is a good one.
And I would not accept that airshows are inherently dangerous; the two Red Arrows are never head on.
I am not suggesting that is the case here, just I don't think your analogy is a good one.
And I would not accept that airshows are inherently dangerous; the two Red Arrows are never head on.
I would imagine that when the pilot checked the paperwork (I believe historic jet ops mirror RAF processes - F700 equivalent) and also saw the aircraft had a valid Permit, not unreasonably, he believed it was to all intents and purposes airworthy. Short of dismantling the machine to check for himself, I’m not sure there would be a great deal else he could do to satisfy himself of the legality of the flight.
Correct. As in a past airline career, when offered a Load sheet or Tech Log showing an aircraft as serviceable, it is normally accepted. Short of the Captain personally counting the bags in the hold, and weighing the freight, or checking every maintenance operation, one accepts that your highly qualified colleagues have done their job.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK
If I Go to the Isle of Man or the Northwest 200 to watch motorcycle road racing I stand by the side of a closed public road to see very fast motorcycles raced and presumably as a participant in this event I As an adult know the risks of attending and don’t expect compensation if an accident should occur.
Those who decided to stand by a public road outside the protected public area decided to take that informed risk and as adults they are responsible for the consequences of those risks.
Those who simply traveled along that road as part of their day to day life unconnected with the airshow had not made ( and could not be in a position to ) make the decision to take that risk. Therefore these people should get the full amount of compensation due.
Those who decided to put themselfs at additional risk compared to those in the airshow protected areas should not expect the level of compensation due to those who did not opt to take that risk .
Those who decided to stand by a public road outside the protected public area decided to take that informed risk and as adults they are responsible for the consequences of those risks.
Those who simply traveled along that road as part of their day to day life unconnected with the airshow had not made ( and could not be in a position to ) make the decision to take that risk. Therefore these people should get the full amount of compensation due.
Those who decided to put themselfs at additional risk compared to those in the airshow protected areas should not expect the level of compensation due to those who did not opt to take that risk .
It's in the nature of an air display that participating aircraft can be seen from some distance away, and can normally be expected to perform some manouvres outside the airfield boundary. Whether those who can witness the display from a public road are there for that purpose or are just passing through is immaterial, and the comparison with TT Race spectators is a red herring.
Out of interest, how large a radius outside the airfield boundary would you define as your exclusion zone, within which you consider anyone present with the intention of watching the display to have willingly placed themselves at risk?
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 15th Nov 2017 at 20:50.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having commented yesterday that there were two issues running here, now a third pops up, namely compensation by or on behalf those injured or killed .
That is an easier issue to address.
The law in England is as set-out in this useful review, namely ...
LIABILITY FOR AIRCRAFT DAMAGE TO GROUND OCCUPIERS
-A STUDY OF CURRENT TRENDS IN TORT LAW
Tort law may properly be considered as an ever flexible body of
law constantly changing to meet the needs of society. It must be admitted,
however, that legal concepts have not always succeeded in keeping
apace with the development of the activity. A study of the considerations
affecting liability growing out of aircraft damages to persons
and property on the ground seems useful in reflecting the present trends
and bases of tort law generally. Here the law, caught in a state of flux,
can be objectively appraised in an atmosphere unfettered by rigid
precedent.
Historically aviation was considered an ultrahazardous activity.
For this reason aircraft owners were absolutely liable for damage to
persons and property on the ground.' This rule of liability without
fault was adopted in England and many other foreign countries' as well
http://www.repository.law.indiana.ed...71&context=ilj
That is an easier issue to address.
The law in England is as set-out in this useful review, namely ...
LIABILITY FOR AIRCRAFT DAMAGE TO GROUND OCCUPIERS
-A STUDY OF CURRENT TRENDS IN TORT LAW
Tort law may properly be considered as an ever flexible body of
law constantly changing to meet the needs of society. It must be admitted,
however, that legal concepts have not always succeeded in keeping
apace with the development of the activity. A study of the considerations
affecting liability growing out of aircraft damages to persons
and property on the ground seems useful in reflecting the present trends
and bases of tort law generally. Here the law, caught in a state of flux,
can be objectively appraised in an atmosphere unfettered by rigid
precedent.
Historically aviation was considered an ultrahazardous activity.
For this reason aircraft owners were absolutely liable for damage to
persons and property on the ground.' This rule of liability without
fault was adopted in England and many other foreign countries' as well
http://www.repository.law.indiana.ed...71&context=ilj
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roving
An interesting, if somwhat dated document that illustrates some of the issues regarding compensation. I believe that it concludes, in summary, if the presence of an aircraft causes death, injury or damage on the ground, liability falls with the aircraft owner.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the incident wouldn't have happened in the absence of an aircraft flying overhead.
As to the responsibilities of those on the ground, if they were not complicit in the incident i.e. obstructing the aircraft in some way, or within some prohibited area, then compensation is equally payable to all.
I think there is a strong probability that a case can be made that an area of parking restrictions in the interests of promoting free traffic movement is not a prohibited area for the purposes of an air display nearby.
In the 72 years since that digest was published, the law may have accepted that aviation is less dangerous, but the consequences of an incident/accident still remain with the aircraft owner and/or their insurers.
I conclude that all casualties from the Shoreham incident are entitled to compensation for their losses without deduction for their own liability in being within an area subject to parking restrictions. This is because the parking restrictions were imposed to promote the free flow of traffic past the flying display event and not as a safety measure against the possibility of an aircraft crashing within that area.
So no real issue here at all.
An interesting, if somwhat dated document that illustrates some of the issues regarding compensation. I believe that it concludes, in summary, if the presence of an aircraft causes death, injury or damage on the ground, liability falls with the aircraft owner.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the incident wouldn't have happened in the absence of an aircraft flying overhead.
As to the responsibilities of those on the ground, if they were not complicit in the incident i.e. obstructing the aircraft in some way, or within some prohibited area, then compensation is equally payable to all.
I think there is a strong probability that a case can be made that an area of parking restrictions in the interests of promoting free traffic movement is not a prohibited area for the purposes of an air display nearby.
In the 72 years since that digest was published, the law may have accepted that aviation is less dangerous, but the consequences of an incident/accident still remain with the aircraft owner and/or their insurers.
I conclude that all casualties from the Shoreham incident are entitled to compensation for their losses without deduction for their own liability in being within an area subject to parking restrictions. This is because the parking restrictions were imposed to promote the free flow of traffic past the flying display event and not as a safety measure against the possibility of an aircraft crashing within that area.
So no real issue here at all.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Essex
Age: 51
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two Hawk jets were said to have touched during an “opposition manoeuvre” in which one aircraft flies like a mirror image of another.
One of the jets’ rudders was damaged and Flt Lt Mike Ling, 30, was forced to eject and parachute to safety from a height of around 1,000ft (300m).
He suffered a dislocated shoulder and cuts and bruises and was taken away for treatment on a stretcher and in a neck brace as a precaution.
Flt Lt Ling, who flies under the call sign Red 6, was last night in the Venizelos state hospital, in the city of Heraklion, and his injuries were described as “not serious”.
The pilot is married and lives with his wife Natalie in Biggin Hill, south east London. The pilot of the other jet was Flt Lt David Montenegro.
Two Red Arrows jets collide in mid-air - Telegraph
One of the jets’ rudders was damaged and Flt Lt Mike Ling, 30, was forced to eject and parachute to safety from a height of around 1,000ft (300m).
He suffered a dislocated shoulder and cuts and bruises and was taken away for treatment on a stretcher and in a neck brace as a precaution.
Flt Lt Ling, who flies under the call sign Red 6, was last night in the Venizelos state hospital, in the city of Heraklion, and his injuries were described as “not serious”.
The pilot is married and lives with his wife Natalie in Biggin Hill, south east London. The pilot of the other jet was Flt Lt David Montenegro.
Two Red Arrows jets collide in mid-air - Telegraph
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. As in a past airline career, when offered a Load sheet or Tech Log showing an aircraft as serviceable, it is normally accepted. Short of the Captain personally counting the bags in the hold, and weighing the freight, or checking every maintenance operation, one accepts that your highly qualified colleagues have done their job.
Do you remember the case of the multiple fatalities caused by a lorry with defective brakes going out of control down a hill in I think the city of Bath.
Both the maintenance people, the owners AND the lorry driver were charged with manslaughter.
The jury threw out the charge against the lorry driver- though it was aided in their decision that the driver had only been in the job a short while and might well reasonably not known about the dire maintenance state the company seemed to run its vehicle(s) in.
The collision involved the Opposition Barrel Roll by the Synchro Pair, where one of the two aircraft was slightly late in initiating the manoeuvre and therefore their trajectories converged.
Moderator
As an adult know the risks of attending and don’t expect compensation if an accident should occur
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The important underlying principle is that even when aerobatics are being performed by the very best pilots flying well maintained aircraft, accidents do happen. The Red Arrows display not only in the UK but around the world.
Should the Red Arrows, who perform not only the UK, but across the Globe, be banned? Of course not.
So there is no doubting where I am coming from on the issues thrown-up, my late father not only performed aerobatics, as a QFI he taught aerobatics too
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Essex
Age: 51
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More accurately, they shouldn't have been flying directly at one another, but they were.
The collision involved the Opposition Barrel Roll by the Synchro Pair, where one of the two aircraft was slightly late in initiating the manoeuvre and therefore their trajectories converged.
The collision involved the Opposition Barrel Roll by the Synchro Pair, where one of the two aircraft was slightly late in initiating the manoeuvre and therefore their trajectories converged.
The implication in the earlier post was that the reds fly straight at one another and then swerve out of the way at the last moment in some sort game of fast jet chicken, which is not the case.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand the 'parking in an unauthorised area' statements.
The aircraft crashed on a main four lane road, which was not closed and was busy with passing traffic, and that slowed by the congestion caused by vehicles attending the air show. It hit some of these vehicles.
The aircraft then went for a couple of hundred metres along the side, and on, that road.
It's progress may (my inference) have been stopped by some small buildings and a dip in the ground locally known as 'Honeymans Hollow'.
The people travelling on the road and standing or walking near and on it were going about their perfectly lawful business.
The aircraft crashed on a main four lane road, which was not closed and was busy with passing traffic, and that slowed by the congestion caused by vehicles attending the air show. It hit some of these vehicles.
The aircraft then went for a couple of hundred metres along the side, and on, that road.
It's progress may (my inference) have been stopped by some small buildings and a dip in the ground locally known as 'Honeymans Hollow'.
The people travelling on the road and standing or walking near and on it were going about their perfectly lawful business.
Last edited by gcal; 16th Nov 2017 at 16:52.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 AUGUST 2016 • 12:34PM
The owners of the plane that crashed at Shoreham Air Show, killing 11 men, have settled two compensation claims so far, lawyers for the victims' families said.
Stewarts Law, which is representing some of those affected by last August's crash in West Sussex, said the rest of the cases it is handling are in "advanced negotiations".
James Healy-Pratt, head of aviation at Stewarts Law, said: "Whilst no money will ever bring any of the loved ones back, we did obtain an admission of legal responsibility from the owner of the jet and their aviation insurers in late 2015.
Shoreham air disaster plane owners settle compensation claims with two victims' families
The owners of the plane that crashed at Shoreham Air Show, killing 11 men, have settled two compensation claims so far, lawyers for the victims' families said.
Stewarts Law, which is representing some of those affected by last August's crash in West Sussex, said the rest of the cases it is handling are in "advanced negotiations".
James Healy-Pratt, head of aviation at Stewarts Law, said: "Whilst no money will ever bring any of the loved ones back, we did obtain an admission of legal responsibility from the owner of the jet and their aviation insurers in late 2015.
Shoreham air disaster plane owners settle compensation claims with two victims' families