AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admit that what I posted was only something that was told to me by someone who appeared to be credible. Obviously no evidence or further info was given to me.
It could be bad info and I could have said nothing further but after what happened in the earlier crash I alluded to, I refuse to do so(in that case, I said similar words of "I am not surprised/that is who I guessed it would be"). Others in the know can feel free to prove the allegation wrong which is fine by me but flying at BA is a lot different that the military/airshow environment.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but but that's the board as a generic entity. The only way they can quiz individuals is under caution for a criminal offence. If hey were desperate they could charge under some trumped up charge, maybe Obstructing a Police Officer - section 89(2) Police Act 1996. Can't see it though. Plus an MoU isn't legally binding.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Cargo Clown
Complete and utter rubbish. The police can speak to anyone and ask whether they are prepared to assist and/or provide a witness statement. They can 'quiz' anyone. Only if they are a suspect is it necessary to caution them.
The police could approach a member of the AAIB and ask them to provide details of their individual findings. It would be up to the individual whether they were prepared to provide a statement. It would not be done under caution. AAIB staff were called by the prosecution in the Hoyle trial to support their case as to the physical findings (although it didn't get the prosecution very far!).
Complete and utter rubbish. The police can speak to anyone and ask whether they are prepared to assist and/or provide a witness statement. They can 'quiz' anyone. Only if they are a suspect is it necessary to caution them.
The police could approach a member of the AAIB and ask them to provide details of their individual findings. It would be up to the individual whether they were prepared to provide a statement. It would not be done under caution. AAIB staff were called by the prosecution in the Hoyle trial to support their case as to the physical findings (although it didn't get the prosecution very far!).
Others in the know can feel free to prove the allegation wrong which is fine by me but flying at BA is a lot different that the military/airshow environment.
).You’ve still managed to cunningly leave the “but” in that comment, so I guess you want to leave the accusation hanging...
Can you now at least accept that you have now had “character references” (for what they are worth, this being the internet etc) ) from people who seem to have known/worked with/supervised AH in the military and in BA, and that some (self included) have interacted occasionally with him in both environments and perhaps over a period of many years .
Nobody yet, apart from your mate, qualifications and experience of AH as yet unspecified, has yet to offer up an opinion or evidence that would have led one to believe that on the basis of his flying in the RAF or flying in BA AH was a later day Bud Holland.....So either come up with a concrete instance of AH’s training record or flying in the military (or BA for that matter) that led your friend to form his opinion or stop repeating the allegation and hints.
What happened on the air show circuit is another matter - I will freely admit I really don’t have insight into that and don't know how AH performed or was regarded there...that is perhaps is an opinion that might have been interesting but your mate wasn’t commenting on that, was he/she?
Last edited by wiggy; 4th Dec 2017 at 11:18.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the higher speed/altitude required to perform the loop in the Hunter, compared with the JP, arise because the Hunter, unlike the JP, has swept back wings?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You’ve still managed to cunningly leave the “but” in that comment, so I guess you want to leave the accusation hanging...
Can you now at least accept that you have now had “character references” (for what they are worth, this being the internet etc) ) from people who seem to have known/worked with/supervised AH in the military and in BA, and that some (self included) have interacted occasionally with him in both environments and perhaps over a period of many years .
Nobody yet, apart from your mate, qualifications and experience of AH as yet unspecified, has yet to offer up an opinion or evidence that would have led one to believe that on the basis of his flying in the RAF or flying in BA AH was a later day Bud Holland.....So either come up with a concrete instance of AH’s training record or flying in the military (or BA for that matter) that led your friend to form his opinion or stop repeating the allegation and hints.
What happened on the air show circuit is another matter - I will freely admit I really don’t have insight into that and don't know how AH performed or was regarded there...that is perhaps is an opinion that might have been interesting but your mate wasn’t commenting on that, was he/she?
Can you now at least accept that you have now had “character references” (for what they are worth, this being the internet etc) ) from people who seem to have known/worked with/supervised AH in the military and in BA, and that some (self included) have interacted occasionally with him in both environments and perhaps over a period of many years .
Nobody yet, apart from your mate, qualifications and experience of AH as yet unspecified, has yet to offer up an opinion or evidence that would have led one to believe that on the basis of his flying in the RAF or flying in BA AH was a later day Bud Holland.....So either come up with a concrete instance of AH’s training record or flying in the military (or BA for that matter) that led your friend to form his opinion or stop repeating the allegation and hints.
What happened on the air show circuit is another matter - I will freely admit I really don’t have insight into that and don't know how AH performed or was regarded there...that is perhaps is an opinion that might have been interesting but your mate wasn’t commenting on that, was he/she?
As for the mate's comments, I am not 100% sure/can't remember if it was in the military, in the airshow circuit or combination of both. Don't want to risk forwarding anything I am not sure about and the only thing I am sure about is an unproven allegation. I do believe that the report itself makes comment about a previous incident although that obviously doesn't prove anything. I'm sure plenty of safe, successful performers have made a similar error once or twice in their career.
Last edited by JammedStab; 4th Dec 2017 at 16:11.
JS
Fair comment, but I am not sure it helps us here. As I understand the history regarding Bud Holland he had a reputation that was doing the rounds well before his accident, several crew members had him on a "no fly with list" and one of the poor souls killed in the accident itself was only onboard because whilst he had concerns and he was the only supervisor prepared to fly with BH.
As far as AH is concerned if you can find multiple sources prepared to step up and say he had a “reputation”, was on some people’s "no fly with list", and/or was being shielded by supervisors then perhaps the debate can continue andthe comparison might be be valid...until then I don’t think you can draw comparisons ....
And just about finally, FWIW (by way of further disclosure) I flew with AH on a few occasions in the military in a supervisory role (and I'm not talking about BFTS or AFTS) and I perosnally don’t recall anything out of the norm or any of the other unit supervisors expressing doubts or concerns.
Again I have knowledge or opinion of the air show situation...
And with that, unless there’s further evidence, I am “out”,
Yet we know what happened with Mr. Holland. Which proves that having been authorized for a sortie more than once doesn't prove anything.
As far as AH is concerned if you can find multiple sources prepared to step up and say he had a “reputation”, was on some people’s "no fly with list", and/or was being shielded by supervisors then perhaps the debate can continue andthe comparison might be be valid...until then I don’t think you can draw comparisons ....
And just about finally, FWIW (by way of further disclosure) I flew with AH on a few occasions in the military in a supervisory role (and I'm not talking about BFTS or AFTS) and I perosnally don’t recall anything out of the norm or any of the other unit supervisors expressing doubts or concerns.
Again I have knowledge or opinion of the air show situation...
And with that, unless there’s further evidence, I am “out”,
Last edited by wiggy; 4th Dec 2017 at 16:26.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reference for your first-hand experience in a supervisory role. While certainly pertinent in terms of ability, we all know that personality is really only fully unleashed when one is finally in charge with no supervisor.
Last edited by JammedStab; 6th Dec 2017 at 07:11.
Drain Bamaged
Wiggy, I don’t think anybody is implying that he acted knowingly recklessly during his carreer as Hollande did. If so, they shouldn’t.
There may have been a few days where he was not particularly «stellar» For whatever reasons. Lack of training, fatigue or else. Versus being «highly competent» Most of the time.
As you are fully aware, this airshow environment is less forgiving.
If you search directly on YouTube: «Jet Provost southport air show 2014 - andy hill southport airshow»
There is an example of what looked like not a particular .... stellar day to perform.
There may have been a few days where he was not particularly «stellar» For whatever reasons. Lack of training, fatigue or else. Versus being «highly competent» Most of the time.
As you are fully aware, this airshow environment is less forgiving.
If you search directly on YouTube: «Jet Provost southport air show 2014 - andy hill southport airshow»
There is an example of what looked like not a particular .... stellar day to perform.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Romsey
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than trying to dissect AHs character or career let’s focus on what barriers may or may not have been put into place post his demonstrably very worrying performance at Southport.
What measures/barriers were put in place, recorded and acted upon by AH, his supervisors (DAE), CAA, FCC etc. to ensure the apparent deficiencies were addressed?
Ultimately, if any measures were applied, why did they fail?
What measures/barriers were put in place, recorded and acted upon by AH, his supervisors (DAE), CAA, FCC etc. to ensure the apparent deficiencies were addressed?
Ultimately, if any measures were applied, why did they fail?
This case is likely to be politicised due to the number of fatalities- being able to pin the blame on one individual shows that regulators and government are tough on these kind of issues which gets them off being tough on corporate manslaughter which is usually at the heart of transport disasters and never results in any prosecution of the management who are usually at the back of things.
So this I feel will go the tragic way of the BA 747 Captain- pilot in command gets the book thrown at them , and I am not for a minute suggesting there isnt a real issue here with the performance on the day but the powers that been will want to avoid the bleeding obvious that some areas around all airshows should be sterilised (ie not over flown) or where practical blocked off. That could have very serious consequences
So this I feel will go the tragic way of the BA 747 Captain- pilot in command gets the book thrown at them , and I am not for a minute suggesting there isnt a real issue here with the performance on the day but the powers that been will want to avoid the bleeding obvious that some areas around all airshows should be sterilised (ie not over flown) or where practical blocked off. That could have very serious consequences
Also, the blame game is probably strongly influenced, as usual, by the insurance companies. Blame = liability. Each actor's insurers will be trying to avoid paying out by working behind the scenes to pin the blame on another actor.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that when anything goes wrong it is custom and practice to blame the lawyers and the insurers, but invariably they are more professional than those who created the problem in the first place.
Would it be reasonable for the display manager to call horizontal only or cancel?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Financially suicidal I would think.
I don't know a lot about the airshow business, but I would expect that the organisers might not want to pay, if you don't display.
You will still have incurred a serious cost to get there, and back home.
However, in this case we seem to be overlooking the bit where some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.
I don't know a lot about the airshow business, but I would expect that the organisers might not want to pay, if you don't display.
You will still have incurred a serious cost to get there, and back home.
However, in this case we seem to be overlooking the bit where some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.
Air police, my comments were referring to a possible call from the ground to 'go flat' or 'cancel' once the display was commenced.
I guess you're referring to the implications of cancelling prior to the display aircraft departing for the venue.
I guess you're referring to the implications of cancelling prior to the display aircraft departing for the venue.