AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015

[Pozidrive]

Originally Posted by Dr Jekyll

Why would it be any worse than before Shoreham?

Because now, the realities of operating aircraft beyond their "shelf-life" have become general knowledge?

[M.Mouse]

It appears to me that there are people/groups around with enough money to buy and operate high performance aircraft which were just not around in private hands 30 - 40 years ago.

The tragedy at Shoreham has brought an unpleasant wake up call to the regulatory authorities where regulation and enforcement has, unsurprisingly, not kept pace with the changing world.

From a link posted earlier referencing the English Electric Lightning crash in South Africa I dug out the previously unread accident report. It was quite staggering how the aircraft had been operated and maintained in what appears to have been a cavalier manner with scant regard for the regulations and little oversight by the South African authorities. The price was a crash although only one person was needlessly killed on that occasion.

[Pozidrive]

I would hope ALL lessons are being learned, causal factors or not.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Might have the money to do it, but...

Originally Posted by Parson

Bigpants - I don't see anything wrong with a PPL flying an ex mil fast jet on a permit. It depends what type of flying of course.

"A man's got to know his limitations." Unfortunately, many don't, like this guy who couldn't even get it airborne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_S...Sabre_accident

[JEM60]

This month's Pilot magazine carries an article that reveals that for £75,000 down, and £2,500 per month one could become a part-owner and fly a Gnat in this country.

[Parson]

PrivtPilotRadarTech - of course. That is why I said experience and competence counts. You get fools in all walks of life.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by JEM60

This month's Pilot magazine carries an article that reveals that for £75,000 down, and £2,500 per month one could become a part-owner and fly a Gnat in this country.

Even if the part owner has the basics needed to operate the Gnat, how will that person maintain the needed knowledge and skills essential for coping with mechanicals or other unexpected glitches.
Some years ago, the chairman of an air freight company and his guest were lost flying a Soko Galeb, a similar performance airplane to the Gnat, because the aircraft lost its canopy shortly after takeoff. An adequately trained pilot would have been able to maintain control, but not someone flying this jet as a hobby.
Presumably the licensing authorities see that as an acceptable risk, but perhaps they are mistaken.

[JEM60]

PRIVPILTRADRTECH.I read the report. One doesn't have to be a novice in the aircraft to make that mistake. Exactly the same thing happened at Duxford with a T.33, but without the horrible consequences of the Sabre accident. VERY experienced pilot.

[Hebog]

Originally Posted by Pozidrive

The "airworthiness issues" were not trivial things like burnt-out lamps as you suggest.


There were more fundamental issues discovered regarding maintenance of ageing aircraft. Issues which might not have contributed to this incident, but could have done in the future.

Is this the only aircraft, are there other aircraft with issues. Is it like the South African accident, is there a cavalier attitude to maintenance here in the UK. Surely the replacement parts in the UK are also past best too.


I know that this will not be relevant as far as the CPS, coroner and AAIB are concerned but this should be a concern to the CAA. Surely the false declarations made by several companies about the aircrafts serviceability to allow a permit to be issued should be investigated further and action taken as appropriate. Surely it would be better for them to act now rather than after an accident which is the direct result of a cavalier approach to maintenance.

[Dan Winterland]

I don't see anything wrong with a PPL flying an ex mil fast jet on a permit. It depends what type of flying of course.

There is too much to go wrong. The pilot of the crash reported below did not have the skill for what he was attempting. You can argue that the Shoreham pilot had the skill, but still - it went wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...-t-mk-1-g-timm

[beardy]

Dan, as you should be well aware, the type of licence does not guarantee the skill of the pilot. Gosh, there are some out there with no licence at all but who are particularly skillful, they fly in the armed services: it is the display authorisation which 'should' indicate a level of proficiency. Forget the PPL red herring.

[LOMCEVAK]

The PPL is just the licence; an appropriate rating is also required. Ex-military jets flown under CAP632 require an Aircraft Type Rating Exemption which will only be issued following a bespoke training package agreed by the CAA. That is where relevant ability and experience is determined. The display aspects are totally separate and are in accordance with CAP403. The type of licence, as has been said before, is no indicator of pure flying skills and airmanship which are the relevant aspects with respect to flying aircraft such as the Hunter.

[Chronus]

I agree with comments that the issue is not one of type of licence. It is all a matter of level of skill and experience on type. How would it be if it was a F104, honest airplane that it was, with a PPL or an ATPL strapped in it. I doubt the airplane would know the difference.

[Hebog]

Update ..

As this doesn't appear to have filtered through the news channels
https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/births...t/latest-news/

[Dogma]

Thankfully the team at Balpa took the Sussex Police and Coroner to the High Court and prevented them gaining access to the AAiB interview transcripts and evidence. This amongst other work in the defence of critical flight data has been instrumental in gaining a significant bit of case law to apply internationally

Chicago convention

Thanks Balpa

[Just a Grunt]

The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2280.html

Interesting read.

[roving]

Clearly the legislation and the view of the Divisional Court is that the importance of maintaining confidence that the statements provided by those invited to assist the AAIB in their investigation of air accidents will be confidential outweighs any public interest that the Police may have in accessing those statements.

If the Divisional Court had granted disclosure to the Police the risk is that in future those invited to assist the AAIB would refuse to do so for fear that they may incriminate themselves.

I suspect that the Police never expected to win the point but was anxious not to be criticised for not making the application.

[Ambient Sheep]

It is indeed interesting, and seems well-argued on the two main points of Andy Hill's verbal evidence and the cockpit video. However I found the following most intriguing:

What that therefore leaves for further consideration is two requests for disclosure. The first relates to reports of test flights which were done by a specialist pilot. The second relates to engineering reports on the mechanical state of the plane.

For the reasons which are set out in the Confidential Annex to this judgment, I would refuse those requests by the Chief Constable.

What on earth is it about those two aspects that means we can't even know WHY the judge refused them? As I said, intriguing.

By the way, seems this was all back in July 2016, sixteen months ago.

[roving]

The very fact that you asked the question explains why the details were contained in a confidential annex. The information is clearly so sensitive that public disclosure of it could potentially prejudice any future proceedings.

I do not subscribe to the view that "the public" have a right to know anything and everything which may be disclosed by members of the public to Public Servants to enable them them to discharge their Statutory functions..

"Freedom of Information" applications have a proper role in ensuring that the State conducts its affairs in accordance with the law, providing the information being sought does not harm those unconnected with the State who have provided information on the understanding that it will remain confidential.

The slippery slope is that information received by a Public Servant to enable a statutory function to be discharged is available to any Public Servant for any purpose, and consequently under the pretext of a Freedom of Information application, the World at large.

[Ambient Sheep]

Originally Posted by roving

The very fact that you asked the question explains why the details were contained in a confidential annex. The information is clearly so sensitive that public disclosure of it could potentially prejudice any future proceedings.

Well obviously, and I'm not demanding such information be disclosed (which is the tone you seem to be taking in your reply). I fully accept, for example, that we shall never know what Andy Hill said to the AAIB and I can fully understand why. I don't have a problem with that.

I'm just naturally fascinated as to what possible reasons there could be for us not to even know WHY those test results can't be disclosed to the police. After all, it shouldn't be down to whatever the results actually were, should it? One would have thought it were down merely to the principles of the legal arguments surrounding them, as with AH's statements and the cockpit CCTV. The results of those tests in themselves shouldn't have been relevant as to the judge's decision, thus I struggle to imagine a scenario in which we can't be told the reasons why those tests weren't legally admissible.

Obviously there is such a scenario, and we must trust the judge on this, I just can't think what it might be, that's all.