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
I am not suggesting that roads should have been closed.
I am just pointing out that the measures that were agreed, to mitigate some of the risks, were not carried out.
The people who came up with the plan decided that traffic lights should stay on green, to prevent a build up of traffic.
As it turns out, they were right to suggest that, but they didn't make it so.
I am just pointing out that the measures that were agreed, to mitigate some of the risks, were not carried out.
The people who came up with the plan decided that traffic lights should stay on green, to prevent a build up of traffic.
As it turns out, they were right to suggest that, but they didn't make it so.
Yes they were. The risk was identified as traffic, not aircraft crashes and measures were put in place.
Risk is a part of everyday life and you are not expected to eliminate all risks. What you must do is make sure you know about the main risks and the things you need to do to manage them responsibly.
Your risk assessment should only include what you could reasonably be expected to know - you are not expected to anticipate unforeseeable risks.
Risk is a part of everyday life and you are not expected to eliminate all risks. What you must do is make sure you know about the main risks and the things you need to do to manage them responsibly.
Your risk assessment should only include what you could reasonably be expected to know - you are not expected to anticipate unforeseeable risks.
So, the traffic lights if kept at green meant that the aircraft would impact moving traffic. How does that mitigate the event that happened? "The people" you keep referring to, could not have prevented an event such as this by adjusting a few traffic light sequences. Any blame cannot rest with 'These people"
Last edited by cessnapete; 12th Dec 2017 at 19:26.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the Le Mans motor race have been cancelled after 1955?
How about the Isle of Man TT...formula 1?
Or ban NASCAR now before a spectator gets killed.
Can they GUARANTEE safety?
How about the Isle of Man TT...formula 1?
Or ban NASCAR now before a spectator gets killed.
Can they GUARANTEE safety?
This pilot had not flown the Hunter very much previously to this airshow. I would strongly suggest that was not current with the aircraft and was not current to perform these manouevers.
In the airline world, we have to have special extra training and clearance to land scheduled passenger jets at Gibralter - which is entirely standard, but a bit short and a bit tight with occasional dodgy winds. Only Captains who have had extra training are authorised to do so and if they haven’t done so for 42 days, it is mandatory to carry a current TRI/TRE either in the RHS or the jump seat to revalidate and ensure the approach is flown correctly.
All well and good. But there at Shoreham, we have a very old aircraft that was maintained by a band of no doubt keen but also not current (on the Hunter) enthusiast engineers. Spare parts are extremely rare, budgets are extremely tight. Rubber seals for example lose their effectiveness over time and should be periodically replaced. I don’t recall if the engine had been properly tested, run, borescoped, or whether engine thrust measurements had been made in the days before the display?
The pilot self briefed. He did not sit in a formal briefing room with other display pilots and a white board and support staff to go through the display, the weather, the performance gates, possible failures and escape manoeuvres and talk everything through.
I am not personally blaming anybody involved in the sequence I have outlined - none of them were deliberately negligent and I am sure they all did their best on the day - but I feel very strongly that the authorities must mandate much stricter rules and processes. Aerobatic display flying should only be performed by current display pilots or current test pilots on properly maintained machines. Proper military style briefings should be carried out. The authorities should go through everything with a fine toothed comb and have a representative there on site before approving aerobatic displays by old aircraft and allowing them to take off.
Cost more money? You bet, but as the old saying goes “If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident”
.
In the airline world, we have to have special extra training and clearance to land scheduled passenger jets at Gibralter - which is entirely standard, but a bit short and a bit tight with occasional dodgy winds. Only Captains who have had extra training are authorised to do so and if they haven’t done so for 42 days, it is mandatory to carry a current TRI/TRE either in the RHS or the jump seat to revalidate and ensure the approach is flown correctly.
All well and good. But there at Shoreham, we have a very old aircraft that was maintained by a band of no doubt keen but also not current (on the Hunter) enthusiast engineers. Spare parts are extremely rare, budgets are extremely tight. Rubber seals for example lose their effectiveness over time and should be periodically replaced. I don’t recall if the engine had been properly tested, run, borescoped, or whether engine thrust measurements had been made in the days before the display?
The pilot self briefed. He did not sit in a formal briefing room with other display pilots and a white board and support staff to go through the display, the weather, the performance gates, possible failures and escape manoeuvres and talk everything through.
I am not personally blaming anybody involved in the sequence I have outlined - none of them were deliberately negligent and I am sure they all did their best on the day - but I feel very strongly that the authorities must mandate much stricter rules and processes. Aerobatic display flying should only be performed by current display pilots or current test pilots on properly maintained machines. Proper military style briefings should be carried out. The authorities should go through everything with a fine toothed comb and have a representative there on site before approving aerobatic displays by old aircraft and allowing them to take off.
Cost more money? You bet, but as the old saying goes “If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident”
.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker
If you could please advise which defect in the aircraft caused the accident then?
If you could please clarify your statement about not being current?
And if you could please point me towards the relevant sections in the AAIB report detailing these matters?
That would be very helpful.
Thank you.
If you could please advise which defect in the aircraft caused the accident then?
If you could please clarify your statement about not being current?
And if you could please point me towards the relevant sections in the AAIB report detailing these matters?
That would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Uplinker
If you could please advise which defect in the aircraft caused the accident then?
If you could please clarify your statement about not being current?
And if you could please point me towards the relevant sections in the AAIB report detailing these matters?
That would be very helpful.
Thank you.
If you could please advise which defect in the aircraft caused the accident then?
If you could please clarify your statement about not being current?
And if you could please point me towards the relevant sections in the AAIB report detailing these matters?
That would be very helpful.
Thank you.
While it did not definitively attribute that to a mechanical defect, it concluded that "an uncommanded reduction in thrust during the accident manoeuvre could not be ruled out".
Cant be proved whether it had a bearing on accident but the aircraft was not airworthy on a number of counts and anyone with knowledge of operating and maintaining those engines professionally will know you can't discount the thrust reduction which may have caught him out due to some other distraction which we will never know the answer to . But factually the airworthiness issue is more of an issue for the CAA than the operator as they approved the permit to fly . Read the report and you will find they rejected most of the maintenance issues before eventually being forced to accept most of them . Could be interesting in court because it should be the CAA in the dock for this even if it can't be proved it was the cause of this sad accident
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear G109
This case is now subject to the Contempt of Court Act as proceedings are active. Whilst you might like to act as Judge, jury and executioner without having seen a single jot of the evidence you might also like to bear that in mind. Care to delete your post?
This case is now subject to the Contempt of Court Act as proceedings are active. Whilst you might like to act as Judge, jury and executioner without having seen a single jot of the evidence you might also like to bear that in mind. Care to delete your post?
"The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced."
I don't think any comments made here will qualify.
I don't think any comments made here will qualify.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear G109
This case is now subject to the Contempt of Court Act as proceedings are active. Whilst you might like to act as Judge, jury and executioner without having seen a single jot of the evidence you might also like to bear that in mind. Care to delete your post?
This case is now subject to the Contempt of Court Act as proceedings are active. Whilst you might like to act as Judge, jury and executioner without having seen a single jot of the evidence you might also like to bear that in mind. Care to delete your post?
Hmmm, someone with no connection to the case posting an opinion on an internet forum can be considered "Contempt of Court" in the UK? Seems bizarre.
FFS guys, this is Gt Britain not Russia!
Andy may have pulled the trigger but the system manufactured the gun and gave him the bullets!
This was a joint effort between the pilot/regulators and organisers if you masnaged to read the AAIB report???
Have some humanity. Do you think he woke up that morning and decided to wreak carnage?
Andy may have pulled the trigger but the system manufactured the gun and gave him the bullets!
This was a joint effort between the pilot/regulators and organisers if you masnaged to read the AAIB report???
Have some humanity. Do you think he woke up that morning and decided to wreak carnage?
Hands Up Those Who Have Never Made A Mistake.
The Guy didn't go out and deliberately take out 11 people. He screwed up. Display flying, like anything else can be terribly unforgiving if you get it wrong.
Yes he will have to face the verdict, given out in a court of law. There but for the grace of God go many, I suspect.
Yes he will have to face the verdict, given out in a court of law. There but for the grace of God go many, I suspect.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Mods are happy to let this thread run then fine but I know that a few years ago in a similar case they were not and I was simply pointing out that -for the third time - this case is subject to the Contempt of Court Act. I suspect that what everyone would agree with is that there should be a fair trial in accordance with the law.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I don't have much familiarity with the UK laws, but if "Manslaughter" in the UK is anything remotely like "Manslaughter" in the US, then the same can be said of every single person convicted of, or even charged with, manslaughter.
