Crash at Shoreham Air show

[lynothehammer]

Gandahar said:

Bascially he is too blame and not wanting to face things. That's what the final decision will be from the investigation board, we all know it. No need for him to be interviewed.

Old pilot in old plane with too few hours in it doing stunts over a built up area.

It's as plane, sorry, plain as the nose on your face, but he's not to blame, the people who encouraged him to do such without considering the issues arriving from it are.

Planes doing things to please crowds at low level are always at risk rather than at 30 000 feet.

Is he to blame ? i think it would be better to wait from the report from the AAIB before you go spouting rubbish like that about.

[anonymous-user]

lynothehammer said:

Gandahar said:

Bascially he is too blame and not wanting to face things. That's what the final decision will be from the investigation board, we all know it. No need for him to be interviewed.

Old pilot in old plane with too few hours in it doing stunts over a built up area.

It's as plane, sorry, plain as the nose on your face, but he's not to blame, the people who encouraged him to do such without considering the issues arriving from it are.

Planes doing things to please crowds at low level are always at risk rather than at 30 000 feet.

Is he to blame ? i think it would be better to wait from the report from the AAIB before you go spouting rubbish like that about.

The post is a bit confusing really.

[TooMany2cvs]

Bluedot said:

From BBC Website:

Shoreham air disaster: Anger at pilot interview delay

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-346664...

One girlfriend quoted as saying something that could be construed that way, but we don't have any context.
Another friend quoted as saying the investigation report will make it all clearer.

Gandahar said:

Old pilot

51...?!?

[saaby93]

el stovey said:

The post is a bit confusing really.

I thought someones account had been hacked

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

el stovey said:

The post is a bit confusing really.

I thought someones account had been hacked

I usually enjoy Gandahar's posts on the cricket. I'm assuming he's drunk or his dog is somehow posting on his behalf.

[RoverP6B]

Gandahar said:

Bascially he is too blame and not wanting to face things. That's what the final decision will be from the investigation board, we all know it. No need for him to be interviewed.

Old pilot in old plane with too few hours in it doing stunts over a built up area.

It's as plane, sorry, plain as the nose on your face, but he's not to blame, the people who encouraged him to do such without considering the issues arriving from it are.

Planes doing things to please crowds at low level are always at risk rather than at 30 000 feet.

Complete bo11ocks. Middle-aged pilot, superbly-maintained aircraft that had used only 30% of its fatigue index in nearly 60 years, doing aerobatics over open countryside. Furthermore, the entire display had to be passed by the CAA-accredited Flight Display Director according to CAA guidelines on the matter, passed also by the CAA themselves - there's a vast amount of meticulous planning goes into all of this.

Furthermore, the aircraft was running in for a pass along the crowd-line. The same thing could happen just as easily on the approach to or overrun of that runway with a bizjet flying straight and level.

[HoHoHo]

RoverP6B said:

Complete bo11ocks. Middle-aged pilot, superbly-maintained aircraft that had used only 30% of its fatigue index in nearly 60 years, doing aerobatics over open countryside. Furthermore, the entire display had to be passed by the CAA-accredited Flight Display Director according to CAA guidelines on the matter, passed also by the CAA themselves - there's a vast amount of meticulous planning goes into all of this.

Furthermore, the aircraft was running in for a pass along the crowd-line. The same thing could happen just as easily on the approach to or overrun of that runway with a bizjet flying straight and level.

It wasn't just running in for a pass along the crowd line.

It entered a loop whilst approaching from the far right of the flight line at 200ft which as I understand is 300ft lower than it should (minimum is 500ft I'm sure I read somewhere to then pass along the crowd line - the loop was the problem, not the pass.

Whilst the display is of course sigend off by the CAA, it doesn't mean a mistake wasn't (possibly) made?

[RoverP6B]

Firstly, it wasn't a loop. Secondly, critical heights have not been established. Thirdly, heights for crowdline passes are lower - 200ft IIRC.

[HoHoHo]

RoverP6B said:

Firstly, it wasn't a loop. Secondly, critical heights have not been established. Thirdly, heights for crowdline passes are lower - 200ft IIRC.

If it wasn't a loop what was it, the flight path looks much like a loop.

If entry heights are 200ft why is David Learmount quoting a minimum entry of 500ft for this type of manoeuvre at airshows in a Daily Telegraph article on this accident?

It has been established in the initial report he entered his last manoeuvre at 200ft, 300ft below safety guidelines/rules

And as I said, it wasn't the pass that was the issue, he appears to have entered a manoeuvre too low, not only to make a safe recovery but 'it would appear' lower than he should have done. Had he completed this manoeuvre he would have then continued along the flight line.

He passed the flight line from the left at the start of his routine at 100ft, I'm not talking about flight line passes.

DT article - please read

So the initial official report is wrong then?

And just to clarify, had he been flying from right to left approaching from the old cement works (or whatever they are) straight along the flight line 200ft would have been fine - he wasn't, he entered a manouvre from the cement works to then fly along the flight line and it was the entry to the loop that was too low hence running out of altitude at the end of the loop prior to flying down the flight line.

Couple of image to show you what happened





Now you can take your pick, however it appears he entered a loop to low (prior to then intending to run down the flight line) and simply ran out of height

Edited to add we obviously await the final report however the flight path shown on these drawings is correct.

Edited by HoHoHo on Friday 30th October 09:34

[dr_gn]

RoverP6B said:

Gandahar said:

Bascially he is too blame and not wanting to face things. That's what the final decision will be from the investigation board, we all know it. No need for him to be interviewed.

Old pilot in old plane with too few hours in it doing stunts over a built up area.

It's as plane, sorry, plain as the nose on your face, but he's not to blame, the people who encouraged him to do such without considering the issues arriving from it are.

Planes doing things to please crowds at low level are always at risk rather than at 30 000 feet.

Furthermore, the aircraft was running in for a pass along the crowd-line. The same thing could happen just as easily on the approach to or overrun of that runway with a bizjet flying straight and level.

Care to explain that in more detail?

(I think HoHoHo pretty much covered everthing else).

[RoverP6B]

The diagrams published are mostly wrong - I think I recognise the second from the AAIB report but I think the first is discredited IIRC. As for height at the start of the manoeuvre, I can't say. Possible altimeter misreading? There was also some talk of a sudden rise in air temperature at the time, meaning a loss of engine power. We must simply wait for the AAIB to report.

Incidentally, as for the families supposedly going on about needing to get Andy Hill interviewed - the lady who was to have been Mrs Trussler, Giovanna Chirico, seems a very unpleasant individual from her Facebook postings, and has called for Hill's length incarceration and/or execution on the basis of convictions on eleven counts of murder. She and her chums showed a wilful disregard for his welfare, making it plain they didn't care. One of Mr Trussler's cousins spoke out against this and was very vocally critical of her and others defaming Hill's name: this chap actually said that he thought Hill was due enormous credit for handling it in such a way that much greater fatalities did not occur.

[HoHoHo]

RoverP6B said:

The diagrams published are mostly wrong - I think I recognise the second from the AAIB report but I think the first is discredited IIRC. As for height at the start of the manoeuvre, I can't say. Possible altimeter misreading? There was also some talk of a sudden rise in air temperature at the time, meaning a loss of engine power. We must simply wait for the AAIB to report.

Incidentally, as for the families supposedly going on about needing to get Andy Hill interviewed - the lady who was to have been Mrs Trussler, Giovanna Chirico, seems a very unpleasant individual from her Facebook postings, and has called for Hill's length incarceration and/or execution on the basis of convictions on eleven counts of murder. She and her chums showed a wilful disregard for his welfare, making it plain they didn't care. One of Mr Trussler's cousins spoke out against this and was very vocally critical of her and others defaming Hill's name: this chap actually said that he thought Hill was due enormous credit for handling it in such a way that much greater fatalities did not occur.

The first is the AAIB report and they have suggested he was too low, you are correct you have to question why......but he was too low and do you now agree not running straight down the flight line so your 200ft minimum is of no relavance at all?

Having been closer to the event than I would have liked I don't remember a sudden spike in air temperature, are you talking 1 or 10 degrees to make a difference?

I'm not going to comment on your last para, I have no idea who you are talking about but I will say that in my opinion having watched the final seconds live he wasn't anything other than a passenger in that aircraft. There was only going to be one conclusion and it would have been impossible to alter the flight path given the circumstances.

[HoHoHo]

dr_gn said:

RoverP6B said:

Gandahar said:

Bascially he is too blame and not wanting to face things. That's what the final decision will be from the investigation board, we all know it. No need for him to be interviewed.

Old pilot in old plane with too few hours in it doing stunts over a built up area.

It's as plane, sorry, plain as the nose on your face, but he's not to blame, the people who encouraged him to do such without considering the issues arriving from it are.

Planes doing things to please crowds at low level are always at risk rather than at 30 000 feet.

Furthermore, the aircraft was running in for a pass along the crowd-line. The same thing could happen just as easily on the approach to or overrun of that runway with a bizjet flying straight and level.

Care to explain that in more detail?

(I think HoHoHo pretty much covered everthing else).

He can't Dr because he's wrong

[saaby93]

HoHoHo said:

If it wasn't a loop what was it, the flight path looks much like a loop.

I cant remember whats its called now, something like a half brazilian, the experts will know - it might say earlier on when we were discussing it, but it doesn't loop the loop in the traditional sense as it inverts before going up goes over the top before coming down and out the right way up. It means it comes out the opposite heading to going in and doesn't have to cross its path and so doesn't make a loop.
Does it make any odds whether it's technically a loop or not

We all knew it looked too low when it emerged from the downward bit then seemed to stall in trying to pull up
The question they'll be looking for is why.

[HoHoHo]

saaby93 said:

HoHoHo said:

If it wasn't a loop what was it, the flight path looks much like a loop.

I cant remember whats its called now, something like a half brazilian, the experts will know - it might say earlier on when we were discussing it, but it doesn't loop the loop in the traditional sense as it inverts before going up goes over the top before coming down and out the right way up. It means it comes out the opposite heading to going in and doesn't have to cross its path and so doesn't make a loop.
Does it make any odds whether it's technically a loop or not

We all knew it looked too low when it emerged from the downward bit then seemed to stall in trying to pull up
The question they'll be looking for is why.

Yes, I remember that conversation and it was a half something - nevertheless not an approach from the right straight down the flightline as one here is trying to insist on!

[saaby93]

Do you remember we decided that blue first guess from the media was incorrect
I tried sketching a few then we agreed on this from 72twink - wasnt there a follow up in the report too
Its a flat picture but the red phase is a long sweep out along the river before returning back to do the clover

72twink said:

Here is how my memory plays it - just like SMB and HoHoHo it could be wrong! Excuse the scribbled lines.


Phase 1 (yellow) - a fast, arced pass W-E (maybe more arced than my line)

Phase 2 (red) - a half roll into a large steep turn to the North of the A27, from the crowd line we were looking at the top of the aircraft, this ended with the Hunter heading South.

Phase 3 (green) - Pulling up into a 1/4 Clover or loop with a 90 degree roll carried out on the upward leg so that as he went over the top he was back on the flight line pointing South West.

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 30th October 10:55

[RYH64E]

RoverP6B said:

As for height at the start of the manoeuvre, I can't say. Possible altimeter misreading? There was also some talk of a sudden rise in air temperature at the time, meaning a loss of engine power.

Are you suggesting that the safety of such manouevres is dependant upon something as random as a sudden change in air temperature? Surely that would be built into necessary safety margins?

[EskimoArapaho]

EskimoArapaho said:

RoverP6B said:

There is precisely ZERO suspicion of any criminality on Andy Hill's part. He flew that aeroplane with great skill, and once the accident became unavoidable, stayed with the aeroplane and steered it away from the Ricardo fuel dump. That is professionalism of a height verging on heroism - not criminality!

Can you post a link to this report? And what does it say about the altitude that the climb started?

(polite cough) When you're ready.

[HoHoHo]

EskimoArapaho said:

EskimoArapaho said:

RoverP6B said:

There is precisely ZERO suspicion of any criminality on Andy Hill's part. He flew that aeroplane with great skill, and once the accident became unavoidable, stayed with the aeroplane and steered it away from the Ricardo fuel dump. That is professionalism of a height verging on heroism - not criminality!

Can you post a link to this report? And what does it say about the altitude that the climb started?

(polite cough) When you're ready.

Feck me - steered it away from the Ricardo fuel dump - is Rover on drugs or something similar (I missed that little nugget)

If the pilot had been heading anywhere near the Ricardo site he would have been over the crowd next and then almost certainly his display would be stopped............instantly.

[saaby93]

Ive just looked back 12 pages and for a minute thought I was back here again

The preliminary report is here
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation...

Best have a look what it says