Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Dr Jekyll]

eccles said:

Even though it's part of your job to set it correctly, and if you don't set it correctly you may end up killing people?

Yes. Many pilots may have double checked the setting as a result of hearing about the Hunter pilot who admitted a near miss after setting the altimeter incorrectly. If he had kept his mouth shut for fear of prosecution nobody else could have learned from his mistake.

Do you really believe pilots say to themselves 'There is no need to double check the altimeter, I won't be prosecuted if it's wrong and the worst that can happen with a wrong setting is me getting killed'.

[RYH64E]

Dr Jekyll said:

eccles said:

Even though it's part of your job to set it correctly, and if you don't set it correctly you may end up killing people?

Yes. Many pilots may have double checked the setting as a result of hearing about the Hunter pilot who admitted a near miss after setting the altimeter incorrectly. If he had kept his mouth shut for fear of prosecution nobody else could have learned from his mistake.

Do you really believe pilots say to themselves 'There is no need to double check the altimeter, I won't be prosecuted if it's wrong and the worst that can happen with a wrong setting is me getting killed'.

Surely failure to carry out such a basic check would move the cause from 'accident' to 'negligence'? Knowing your height above ground level before a display would appear to be an important requirement.

[Dr Jekyll]

RYH64E said:

Surely failure to carry out such a basic check would move the cause from 'accident' to 'negligence'? Knowing your height above ground level before a display would appear to be an important requirement.

Not bothering to check at all would be negligence, but it's perfectly possible to make a mistake without being negligent or breaking any laws.

[eccles]

Dr Jekyll said:

eccles said:

Even though it's part of your job to set it correctly, and if you don't set it correctly you may end up killing people?

Yes. Many pilots may have double checked the setting as a result of hearing about the Hunter pilot who admitted a near miss after setting the altimeter incorrectly. If he had kept his mouth shut for fear of prosecution nobody else could have learned from his mistake.

Do you really believe pilots say to themselves 'There is no need to double check the altimeter, I won't be prosecuted if it's wrong and the worst that can happen with a wrong setting is me getting killed'.

I've worked in aviation for over 30 years and the attitudes towards safety has transformed in those years. We are encouraged to report near misses and things we find wrong, with the aim of stopping it happening again, but, and it's a big but, if you are found to be deliberately ignoring various rules or causing problems due to sloppy standards you will still face censure and even be prosecuted if it's found to be deliberate.
It's not a 'no blame' culture. The CAA (assuming pilot hadn't altered his altimeter to the correct setting) may well find the pilot was at fault for various reasons workload/human factors etc. and endorse his ticket, or even suspend it given the gravity of the outcome. But I'm pretty sure the police don't work in the same way, they may well look at the accident report, see that a significant part of the blame lies with the pilot and press ahead with a prosecution, and many people will think this is a justified outcome.
Flight safety shouldn't be some sort of great big immunity umbrella where you can be a sloppy as you like, regardless of outcome, and expect to escape censure or even prosecution.

[anonymous-user]

Isn't Shoreham only 7 feet above sea level anyway?

[Caruso]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's certainly very close, however the altimeter setting is based on barometric pressure which changes. So effectively the setting for sea level changes with the weather.

[wobert]

Caruso said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's certainly very close, however the altimeter setting is based on barometric pressure which changes. So effectively the setting for sea level changes with the weather.

Correct, the embankment between the airfield and River Adur on the eastern side is there to prevent the river swamping the airfield when there is a spring tide.

[DamienB]

SilverSpur said:

None of the victims were spectators at an air show.

At least three and possibly up to five of the eleven dead were indeed spectators at the air show, they were just choosing to spectate from outside of the showground.

[Sylvaforever]

DamienB said:

SilverSpur said:

None of the victims were spectators at an air show.

At least three and possibly up to five of the eleven dead were indeed spectators at the air show, they were just choosing to spectate from outside of the showground.

And how does it matter in the slightest?

[aeropilot]

So, AAIB have released an email that says final report won't be released 'until later in the year'.......

Hmmmmmmmm........

[Zoobeef]

It said on the news yesterday that it was expected in September.

[DamienB]

Sylvaforever said:

And how does it matter in the slightest?

I was merely correcting the other poster.

Feel free to be offended.

[5150]

For info: two years is about the average for the AAIB to complete an accident report.

[Sylvaforever]

DamienB said:

Sylvaforever said:

And how does it matter in the slightest?

I was merely correcting the other poster.

Feel free to be offended.

:soapbox :

[aeropilot]

5150 said:

For info: two years is about the average for the AAIB to complete an accident report.

They published the final report on the Carfest Gnat crash on May 1st, yet that happened only a few weeks before the Shoreham Hunter crash....and they didn't have the benefit of being able to talk to the pilot in that case either!

I wouldn't mind betting that the report is done, and has been for a while, but as this is a first of its kind incident, I'm sure there's a lot of legal ramifications and outside factors involved in this one that are being taken into account before the decision to publish the report is taken.

[Speed 3]

aeropilot said:

I wouldn't mind betting that the report is done, and has been for a while, but as this is a first of its kind incident, I'm sure there's a lot of legal ramifications and outside factors involved in this one that are being taken into account before the decision to publish the report is taken.

In the cases of accidents where there is no significant public interest and its a pretty straightforward and non-contencious conclusion (esp. simple mechanical failure, pilot incapacitation) they'll be out within ~12 months. The extended time is where there is a debatable conclusion and the AAIB are compelled to offer preliminary findings for comment (to the AOC holder, CAA, NATS, manufacturers, maintainer etc). In this particular case there will also be consideration (not necessarily consultation) of secondary processes (CPS if applicable, civil cases etc).

Its important to remember the AAIB's remit is not just to establish cause, but to recommend remedies to prevent re-occurence. The latter requires a good degree of consultation to be workable (as opposed to simply saying stop all comparable activities).

Edited by Speed 3 on Wednesday 24th August 12:00

[Bonefish Blues]

Informed comment is obviously informed

[dr_gn]

Speed 3 said:

(as opposed to simply saying stop all comparable activities).

The CAA have done a pretty good job of that already.

[LittleEnus]

Police have been awarded the right to see cockpit footage..

http://news.sky.com/story/police-win-right-to-see-...

[El Guapo]

Why do the police have to go to the High Court to request AAIB info?
I would have thought that the AAIB findings would constitute evidence and ought to be available to the police as a matter of course.