Crash at Shoreham Air show

[saaby93]

Richie Slow said:

The next instalment...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Still think the CAA are over-reacting? I don't!

It follows on from the previous report ejector seat issues and maintenance issues but seems to be more questions about the engine.

It they're going to tighten up on ejector seats is anyone going to follow up on car airbag mechanism lifetimes?

[yellowjack]

saaby93 said:

It follows on from the previous report ejector seat issues and maintenance issues but seems to be more questions about the engine.

It they're going to tighten up on ejector seats is anyone going to follow up on car airbag mechanism lifetimes?

Probably not. After all, only 785 car occupants were killed in 2013 (DfT records). Total road users killed was 1,713. But the Hawker Hunter has killed only 11 people and all of them in an anomalous single year, statistically speaking. If only there were a "Road Accident Investigation Branch" who would leap into action every single time there was a 'reportable incident' on our roads. Or a "Civil Motoring Authority" who could tweak the rules in response to each and every road collision to keep us all safe on the roads. Maybe they could have a snazzy mission statement, like "driving safety up, and accidents down".

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be investigating air accidents, but why, when so many more people are at risk on the roads every day, are we so hung up on aviation safety. Any number of idiot drivers are running about in unsafe cars having near miss after near miss, yet when someone reports such a near miss, they just get told to "get over yourself" and "grow up" etc, etc.

At least pilots carry out pre-flight checks before every take-off, and they have a vested interest in ensuring their aeroplane is safe to fly. Some car owners/drivers don't even check their tyre pressures between MOTs, FFS!

[dr_gn]

yellowjack said:

saaby93 said:

It follows on from the previous report ejector seat issues and maintenance issues but seems to be more questions about the engine.

It they're going to tighten up on ejector seats is anyone going to follow up on car airbag mechanism lifetimes?

...the Hawker Hunter has killed only 11 people and all of them in an anomalous single year, statistically speaking.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be investigating air accidents, but why, when so many more people are at risk on the roads every day, are we so hung up on aviation safety.

Maybe there are so few aviation related deaths precisely because of the strict regulations and thorough investigations which lead to new regulations intended to make things even safer?

[yellowjack]

dr_gn said:

yellowjack said:

saaby93 said:

It follows on from the previous report ejector seat issues and maintenance issues but seems to be more questions about the engine.

It they're going to tighten up on ejector seats is anyone going to follow up on car airbag mechanism lifetimes?

...the Hawker Hunter has killed only 11 people and all of them in an anomalous single year, statistically speaking.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be investigating air accidents, but why, when so many more people are at risk on the roads every day, are we so hung up on aviation safety.

Maybe there are so few aviation related deaths precisely because of the strict regulations and thorough investigations which lead to new regulations intended to make things even safer?

Precisely my point. I'm not suggesting that we stop investigating aviation accidents and incidents. Just that if there were an expensive, long drawn out process of investigation and reporting after even minor RTCs, with drivers being suspended pending outcomes, then folk would start to be far more careful on the roads and perhaps the bulk of those 1700+ fatalities that get scraped off our roads year on year on year could be prevented. My point really is that whilst not exactly acceptable, there is very little serious work done to combat low-level accidents on our roads, yet even near misses in aviation are thoroughly investigated.

Perhaps I shouldn't have posted. I was more 'thinking out loud' than trying to come up with a real-world workable solution to RTCs, and perhaps my comparison is in poor taste given the subject of the thread. As you were...

[Simpo Two]

dr_gn said:

Maybe there are so few aviation related deaths precisely because of the strict regulations and thorough investigations which lead to new regulations intended to make things even safer?

Also a factor I suspect is that there are few pilots, compared with car drivers, and they don't get a licence after a few hours' practice with dad.

[dr_gn]

Simpo Two said:

dr_gn said:

Maybe there are so few aviation related deaths precisely because of the strict regulations and thorough investigations which lead to new regulations intended to make things even safer?

Also a factor I suspect is that there are few pilots, compared with car drivers, and they don't get a licence after a few hours' practice with dad.

And then go on to pay significant amounts of tax and fines by using a car...but I'm sure that's nothing to do with it.

[Dr Jekyll]

yellowjack said:

Precisely my point. I'm not suggesting that we stop investigating aviation accidents and incidents. Just that if there were an expensive, long drawn out process of investigation and reporting after even minor RTCs, with drivers being suspended pending outcomes, then folk would start to be far more careful on the roads and perhaps the bulk of those 1700+ fatalities that get scraped off our roads year on year on year could be prevented. My point really is that whilst not exactly acceptable, there is very little serious work done to combat low-level accidents on our roads, yet even near misses in aviation are thoroughly investigated.

On the other hand there is also provision for semi official but anonymous reporting of aviation near misses, so other pilots can learn from them. It's also extremely unusual for a pilot to be prosecuted even after an error leading to an accident, while in principle a driver is liable to be prosecuted after almost any own fault accident because of the way 'driving without due care and attention' is defined.

More investigation of road accidents and incidents may well be worthwhile, but not if it's a case of just finding someone to prosecute. Investigation works best if those involved can talk freely.

[jains15]

Dr Jekyll said:

On the other hand there is also provision for semi official but anonymous reporting of aviation near misses, so other pilots can learn from them. It's also extremely unusual for a pilot to be prosecuted even after an error leading to an accident, while in principle a driver is liable to be prosecuted after almost any own fault accident because of the way 'driving without due care and attention' is defined.

Out of interest, what would the penalty be if one caused c.10 deaths in an RTC due to Driving Without Due Care and Attention?

[HoHoHo]

jains15 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

On the other hand there is also provision for semi official but anonymous reporting of aviation near misses, so other pilots can learn from them. It's also extremely unusual for a pilot to be prosecuted even after an error leading to an accident, while in principle a driver is liable to be prosecuted after almost any own fault accident because of the way 'driving without due care and attention' is defined.

Out of interest, what would the penalty be if one caused c.10 deaths in an RTC due to Driving Without Due Care and Attention?

I was told on my speed awareness course recently it would be guaranteed custodial.

[Simpo Two]

HoHoHo said:

jains15 said:

Out of interest, what would the penalty be if one caused c.10 deaths in an RTC due to Driving Without Due Care and Attention?

I was told on my speed awareness course recently it would be guaranteed custodial.

This is the thing that fascinates me. You can make exactly the same mistake - let us say losing control of the car for whatever reason - skid into a hedge and nobody cares a bit. And yet if there were 10 people standing in front of the hedge and they got killed, you'd go to jail. The cause of the crash is exactly the same, but one outcome is lucky and one unlucky.

[Simpo Two]

Agreed. The model is based on an identical location for both, though clearly if the driver was acting irresponsibly then fair enough.

[RoverP6B]

RedLeicester said:

Quite. I've flown Chipmunks, Bulldogs, Grobs, Jet Provost and had a wild backseat ride in a Hawk. Does it mean I can use astonishing muscle memory to then enable me to fly a Hunter? I don't suffer from that level of hubristic confidence. Did I do aerobatics in some of them? Have you ever tried to climb into a Chipmunk cockpit gracefully? Oh sorry that's acrobatics.

Does it then qualify me to post in this thread? Not in the slightest.

Except I just did. Damn.

I would not claim to be able to fly a Hunter - not even if I turned the clock back to 1983 - without instruction on type.

What I can claim, reasonably, is to have a level of insight into aerobatics and display flying which most here apparently don't.

If there are people here with greater experience than I - such as yourself - then I'd love to hear your insights.

[BrabusMog]

All the insight in the world doesn't change the fact he crashed and killed several people. How can you not grasp this fact?

[Fonz]

However there have been examples where racing drivers in the UK have crashed and caused fatalities. They have not faced prosecution for their mistake. Does the responsibility for the fatalities actually lie with the police for failing to close and clear the road prior to the display or is it the CAA for allowing “an unsuitable” venue to be used for an air show in the first place. In my “uneducated opinion” there is a very big difference between someone going too fast on the public highway without official permission making a mistake with the result that there are fatalities and the situation that we are discussing where permission was granted by the authorities prior to the display.

If you feel that the pilot should be in the dock over this event then maybe the heads of several government organisations, such as the police and CAA, for allowing the air show to take place in the way that it did at this venue. If the pilot had not been given permission to carry out the display prior to the event then I doubt that this would have happened. That is why I disagree with those who are drawing parallels with many road traffic accidents and this air show accident.

[RoverP6B]

We still don't know why the aircraft crashed.

It may have been pilot error.

There's also speculation that there was an engine flameout, or that it wasn't developing full power.

We don't know.

The AAIB final report will hopefully clear things up - but we may have to wait awhile, as apparently they're releasing an interim bulletin in the coming week.

[Fonz]

Very true, I should have added that I will wait for the AAIB report before I made a judgment. I did say that on the bin laden accident at Blackbush before Converted Lurker shot me down over that one...

[saaby93]

Fonz said:

In my “uneducated opinion” there is a very big difference between someone going too fast on the public highway without official permission making a mistake with the result that there are fatalities and the situation that we are discussing where permission was granted by the authorities prior to the display.

You're comparing the wrong things
You're also assuming the pilot was doing something he shouldnt have done.
You could compare it to a driver travelling at appropriate speed for the road, something untoward happening and in the process bystanders are taken out
There are clues coming through in the reports but we'll still have to wait for the full one

[eccles]

saaby93 said:

Fonz said:

In my “uneducated opinion” there is a very big difference between someone going too fast on the public highway without official permission making a mistake with the result that there are fatalities and the situation that we are discussing where permission was granted by the authorities prior to the display.

You're comparing the wrong things
You're also assuming the pilot was doing something he shouldnt have done.
You could compare it to a driver travelling at appropriate speed for the road, something untoward happening and in the process bystanders are taken out
There are clues coming through in the reports but we'll still have to wait for the full one

I would have thought a valid comparison would be something like a monster truck crashing into bystanders/spectators would a fairly valid comparison. Doing a display like it's meant to, but something goes wrong and people die.

[dr_gn]

eccles said:

saaby93 said:

Fonz said:

In my “uneducated opinion” there is a very big difference between someone going too fast on the public highway without official permission making a mistake with the result that there are fatalities and the situation that we are discussing where permission was granted by the authorities prior to the display.

You're comparing the wrong things
You're also assuming the pilot was doing something he shouldnt have done.
You could compare it to a driver travelling at appropriate speed for the road, something untoward happening and in the process bystanders are taken out
There are clues coming through in the reports but we'll still have to wait for the full one

I would have thought a valid comparison would be something like a monster truck crashing into bystanders/spectators would a fairly valid comparison. Doing a display like it's meant to, but something goes wrong and people die.

It's unlikely that people completely unconnected with the event would be killed though. I think the airshow scenario is pretty unique. Maybe powerboat racing at a push. Even that rich bloke who ploughed his toy Porsche into spectators in Malta (?) was different because presumably the spectators paid admission and were aware of the risks (although I doubt the latter). Not sure how that's going to pan out because the investigation report said he was driving beyond his ability.

IMO it's the responsibility of the pilot to fly within his own and all imposed limitations. The pilot should also satisfy himself of the serviceability of the aircraft.

[saaby93]

eccles said:

I would have thought a valid comparison would be something like a monster truck crashing into bystanders/spectators would a fairly valid comparison. Doing a display like it's meant to, but something goes wrong and people die.

yes possibly that's closer (providing they were doing something normal for a monster truck)