Crash at Shoreham Air show

[dr_gn]

RoverP6B said:

I can't see anything wrong with the Southport display.

Presumably you're not looking at the same video as everyone else then?

Why was the pilot interviewed after the display?

Why was the display changed?

Why are the police investigating that particular airshow?

[pc.iow]

RoverP6B said:

So, the Torygraph and Beeb have both stated the Southport pilot was Andy Hill? So fking what, they don't know - no official identification has been made. Furthermore, I can't see anything wrong with the Southport display. He flew towards the crowdline then turned 90 degrees before he reached it.

Ray Hanna was a genius. Nobody could fly like him. The late, great Raymond Baxter, who knew his way round a Spitfire himself, described Hanna as "The greatest exponent of the Spitfire".

Keep digging knob.

[dr_gn]

Dr Jekyll said:

dr_gn said:

aeropilot said:

dr_gn said:

Some pilots appear to be revered, partly for taking some pretty significant risks with the lives of others...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnc78LW7V1U

It's obviously a very fine line between being a hero and a villain. I'm amazed the above examples (both the same pilot I think) appeared to gain no interest from the authorities.

I think Ray might have got a ticking off about the Goodwood flyby, being a public event, which is why it never happened again.

The 1st one was a staged sequence for filming, so not sure that would have merited a sanction? After all, that's not too different to Ray doing this for filming during the TV series Piece of Cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVeunEaHiYo

I'd see it as significantly different: He's not deliberately flying within about 1' of someone's head.

The fundamental difference is that they are low passes, not low manoeuvres. So the chance of a small error leading to the aircraft being significantly lower than intended is much reduced.

In the early days of B17 Sally B on the UK display circuit one particular pilot flew ridiculously low passes, so low only the front row of the crowd could see them. But got away with it. Then a few years later he tried to roll a A26 at a much greater height, lost it and crashed.

Either way, based on the evidence of those two videos, I'd call it reckless and unnecessarily risky for the people on the ground. All very well wanting to make yourself some kind of legend, but not at the expense of other people's lives. The more people applaud stunts like that, the more certain individuals will seek to copy or 'better' them.

"Display the aircraft, not the pilot" I think is one of the guidelines for air shows?

[Simpo Two]

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

[dr_gn]

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

I get the impression that his opinion is that RoverP6B is a knob.

[BrabusMog]

dr_gn said:

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

I get the impression that his opinion is that RoverP6B is a knob.

I doubt he's alone in that opinion, although maybe people would add "closed-minded" or "insensitive" as a precursor to "knob".

[dr_gn]

BrabusMog said:

dr_gn said:

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

I get the impression that his opinion is that RoverP6B is a knob.

I doubt he's alone in that opinion, although maybe people would add "closed-minded" or "insensitive" as a precursor to "knob".

I fear that his long awaited slam-dunk absolving Mr.Hill of any responsibility whatsoever, and subsequent dissolution of the CAA is becoming ever more remote.

[pc.iow]

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

Yes,
I think the pilot is at fault.
I think he has been defended on here by some from the air fraternity.
I also feel trying to justify some of the deaths due to them free loading is quite crass.

[anonymous-user]

pc.iow said:

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

Yes,
I think the pilot is at fault.
I think he has been defended on here by some from the air fraternity.
I also feel trying to justify some of the deaths due to them free loading is quite crass.

What caused the crash? Has the AAIB report come out yet?

[pc.iow]

el stovey said:

pc.iow said:

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

Yes,
I think the pilot is at fault.
I think he has been defended on here by some from the air fraternity.
I also feel trying to justify some of the deaths due to them free loading is quite crass.

What caused the crash? Has the AAIB report come out yet?

Like i said, In MY opinion, the pilot caused the crash.
I've commented on this thread before,to me, in layman's terms that's what the report was suggesting.

[anonymous-user]

pc.iow said:

el stovey said:

pc.iow said:

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

Yes,
I think the pilot is at fault.
I think he has been defended on here by some from the air fraternity.
I also feel trying to justify some of the deaths due to them free loading is quite crass.

What caused the crash? Has the AAIB report come out yet?

Like i said, In MY opinion, the pilot caused the crash.
I've commented on this thread before,to me, in layman's terms that's what the report was suggesting.

Sorry, I thought you had access to a report or something, what makes you think he caused the crash?

[ecsrobin]

dr_gn said:

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

I get the impression that his opinion is that RoverP6B is a knob.

[pc.iow]

el stovey said:

pc.iow said:

el stovey said:

pc.iow said:

Simpo Two said:

pc.iow said:

Keep digging knob.

Do you actually have an opinion?

Yes,
I think the pilot is at fault.
I think he has been defended on here by some from the air fraternity.
I also feel trying to justify some of the deaths due to them free loading is quite crass.

What caused the crash? Has the AAIB report come out yet?

Like i said, In MY opinion, the pilot caused the crash.
I've commented on this thread before,to me, in layman's terms that's what the report was suggesting.

Sorry, I thought you had access to a report or something, what makes you think he caused the crash?

Well, apart from the fact he crashed.
It looks like he started the loop and/or descent to low, then crashed.
What do you think caused it?
Just your opinion will do, unless you have the report findings.

[RoverP6B]

I was never certain that Andy Hill's actions in WV372 in the minute before impact were not a causal factor.

I've seen a video of the Southport display and, albeit it's hampered by poor visibility and a lack of perspective to give anything scale, I can't see any rules being broken.

Furthermore, nobody has yet officially identified the pilot involved.

If anyone is to blame, I'd say it's the display director for not cancelling the show. I'm really not sure putting a show on in such atrocious visibility is wise. OK, I was at Dunsfold on the Saturday after Shoreham and it pissed down all day, but the visibility wasn't that bad.

[JuniorD]

RoverP6B said:

Furthermore, nobody has yet officially identified the pilot involved.

Oh FFS.

RoverP6B said:

If anyone is to blame, I'd say it's the display director for not cancelling the show. I'm really not sure putting a show on in such atrocious visibility is wise.

And we all know that the not-yet-officially-identified pilot had no say on whether he should fly or not. Indeed, by not cancelling the show display director was practically forcing the not-yet-officially-identified pilot to fly

[Richie Slow]

RoverP6B said:

I was never certain that Andy Hill's actions in WV372 in the minute before impact were not a causal factor.

I've seen a video of the Southport display and, albeit it's hampered by poor visibility and a lack of perspective to give anything scale, I can't see any rules being broken.

Furthermore, nobody has yet officially identified the pilot involved.

If anyone is to blame, I'd say it's the display director for not cancelling the show. I'm really not sure putting a show on in such atrocious visibility is wise. OK, I was at Dunsfold on the Saturday after Shoreham and it pissed down all day, but the visibility wasn't that bad.

Firstly, it's not always about rules being broken. In the second part of the aileron roll (as it passes the inverted) do you find the sudden loss of height and 'capture' acceptable from an experienced display pilot? It looks like a save, and a lucky one at that. Youtube is full of videos of those kinds of rolls that didn't get saved. Like this perhaps- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4mCvUfpsk . Turning towards the crowd line and busting the display line to save your own backside is a totally unacceptable risk to take. That's a rule broken, if you needed one.

Neither is it acceptable to point a finger at the display director, he didn't fk up on the day. It's the pilot's responsibility and he accepts that when he straps himself into the aircraft. Criminal responsibility is another argument entirely but the moral weight of responsibility for the safety of self and others rests with the pilot. The planning of the routine, establishing the preparation and condition of the aircraft, the weather, traffic, any local restrictions- all of these (and more) rest with the pilot. If it turns out that he was indeed the JP pilot at Southport then the writing was well and truly on the wall.

I remember the planning of shows in the aftermath of Ramstein. The rules and restrictions were realistic. No, I don't think the CAA's latest restrictions address any particular risk but, as the formerly ineffective regulator, they need to be seen to be doing something now.

And you also need to move on from the idea that the Shoreham victims were somehow complicit in their fate. That's utter tosh.

Edited by Richie Slow on Thursday 4th February 13:57

[Richie Slow]

Are you not one for speculation and conjecture then?

How about conspiracy theories and old boys' networks?

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't know about you but I really enjoy learning about the possible causes of the crash or the aircraft or the topic generally, from people that actually know stuff. You have to admit, most of the posters on here clearly don't and are just arguing about stuff they don't know much about, for the sake of it.

I certainly don't know why the aircraft crashed, so I'm interested in hearing from people that do know about the topic, not shouty people just spouting rubbish.

The great thing about PHs is that we have people from all kinds of backgrounds freely offering expertise and experience about almost any topic imaginable. Why do some people start arguing and adopting entrenched positions about topics they clearly have little knowledge of? It just puts of people who might be able to offer some interesting insight from joining in.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It doesn't sound like you want to hear from the informed, you're kind of being rude about exactly the kind of people that actually might know what they're talking about.

[TooMany2cvs]

el stovey said:

I certainly don't know why the aircraft crashed

It's safe to say that it was one of three causes.

- The plane went wrong, for either internal or external reasons.
- The pilot cocked up.
- The ground was in the wrong place.

Have we fully explored that third possibility in that thread? I bet the AAIB investigation is just going to whitewash over it.