Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
RoverP6B said:
The Duxford P-38 crash happened because of a mechanical failure in the aircraft causing asymmetric flap deployment, not pilot error.
Not according to the AAIB report, which, if you read it, says there was very little evidence of any significant fault with the aircraft. Your opinions are bizarre, and the more that people point out your errors, the more worrying your opinions appear to get.
dr_gn said:
Not according to the AAIB report, which, if you read it, says there was very little evidence of any significant fault with the aircraft. Your opinions are bizarre, and the more that people point out your errors, the more worrying your opinions appear to get.
It would be neither the first nor the last time the AAIB got it comprehensively wrong. Just look at how they cocked up over the case of the two Royal Marines in a Tiger Moth a couple of years ago. It has been well-known for years that there was some kind of asymmetric control surface deployment (either flaps, or an aileron booster failure), causing an immediate roll, loss of control and impact. Reading the AAIB report, it does not rule this out...anonymous said:
[redacted]
I take issue both with your allegation that Andy Hill was past it (he had conducted many displays in the weeks and months preceding Shoreham without any problems) and that the aircraft was clapped-out: the Hunter had averaged under 0.5% fatigue index use per annum throughout its life, reaching 28% last year. It could still have flown on to its bicentenary in 2159 before needing major structural renewal. The Avon engine had plenty of life left in it, and is famously reliable as a type. Of course, nobody envisaged that an aircraft would crash onto the A27, but the fact remains that warnings had been issued about people gathering at that site. Had those warnings been heeded, that accident would not have resulted in the fatalities of those spectating there. Of course, the fatalities of those using the road could not thus have been prevented. As for credibility on the broader subject, what have you contributed other than sneering? What is your expertise in aviation? What aircraft types have you flown?I don't want to interrupt your pointless bickering but has the proposed aviation charge document been discussed yet?
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2016/02/0...
Apologies if it has, it's hard to keep track.
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2016/02/0...
Apologies if it has, it's hard to keep track.
RoverP6B said:
dr_gn said:
Not according to the AAIB report, which, if you read it, says there was very little evidence of any significant fault with the aircraft. Your opinions are bizarre, and the more that people point out your errors, the more worrying your opinions appear to get.
It has been well-known for years that there was some kind of asymmetric control surface deployment (either flaps, or an aileron booster failure), causing an immediate roll, loss of control and impact. Reading the AAIB report, it does not rule this out.There was no abnormal deployment of any control surface, it was a radiator flap that was open on one side not the other; this was deemed to have no effect on the control of the aircraft.
The report does However definitely note a safety transgression by the pilot during his previous display of the aircraft, and also that the pilots notes for the P38 prohibit aerobatics below 10,000ft.
To me, based on the report, pilot error was far more likely than mechanical failure in that case.
Of course you've got access to way more information than the AAIB and therefore know it can't possibly have been the fault of the pilot (at least in your own fantasy world). That's been "well known for years", right?
I do not trust any government authority - police, AAIB, CAA, EASA etc - to get it right. They've all cocked up at times. The report on Hoof Proudfoot's demise did not come to definite conclusions and refused to rule certain things out. Those who were there all said the same things, which the AAIB seemed to overlook. The pilot's notes may forbid aerobatics below 10k, but this was comprehensively busted in the type's successful wartime service, and as such it was reasonable to display it as it was displayed at normal display height. Although some transgressions were noted in the previous day's display, they were unintentional and extremely minor, so as to have little relevance to this discussion.
RoverP6B said:
I do not trust any government authority - police, AAIB, CAA, EASA etc - to get it right. They've all cocked up at times. The report on Hoof Proudfoot's demise did not come to definite conclusions and refused to rule certain things out. Those who were there all said the same things, which the AAIB seemed to overlook.
AAIB reports often don't come to definite conclusions, obviously they can't due to the nature of the work. They do however allow the reader to make informed judgements about an accident. You, however, made an unequivocal statement of what you see as fact, apparently based entirely upon your own misunderstandings:RoverP6B said:
The Duxford P-38 crash happened because of a mechanical failure in the aircraft causing asymmetric flap deployment, not pilot error.
...with absolutely zero additional evidence to what's contained in the report - a report you've probably not even read, and if you have, you've certainly not understood it.RoverP6B said:
The pilot's notes may forbid aerobatics below 10k, but this was comprehensively busted in the type's successful wartime service, and as such it was reasonable to display it as it was displayed at normal display height.
So in service, the aircraft routinely performed low level aerobatics? I presume, as usual, you have no evidence whatsoever of the safety record of that aircraft performing aerobatics at that height during WW2?RoverP6B said:
Although some transgressions were noted in the previous day's display, they were unintentional and extremely minor, so as to have little relevance to this discussion.
I'm sure Hill's display transgressions were also unintentional, but even you can't deny they are anything but irrelevant to the discussion.el stovey said:
I don't want to interrupt your pointless bickering but has the proposed aviation charge document been discussed yet?
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2016/02/0...
Apologies if it has, it's hard to keep track.
What would you like to discuss?http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2016/02/0...
Apologies if it has, it's hard to keep track.
RoverP6B said:
........ Although some transgressions were noted in the previous day's display, they were unintentional and extremely minor, so as to have little relevance to this discussion.
And I think the transgressions might be seen as minor at Southport and Shoreham too. It's the consequences of all of those little transgressions when all the holes in the swiss cheese line up that are the problem. Getting away with it almost all of the time is not an attitude I'd be prepared to accept.And going back to a previous point, every display briefing I've attended discussed the weather and invited participants to comment on it. Never,ever,ever have I seen a pilot pressured into a display they weren't happy to do. I cannot imagine ANY serious display pilot being afraid to say "sorry chaps, I don't like the look of things today". You say you know aviation, then you'll know that the decision to not fly is a pilot's supreme right and choice, and it is beyond question. Anyone who caves into pressure isn't the type of person I'd want to see in an aircraft.
The suggestion that the Southport JP pilot was pressured into displaying by the display director/organiser is ridiculous in the extreme. That would be the same display director who called a stop to the display would it?
We are unlikely to find common ground to agree on, but I will not sit blindly in defence of a pilot when all of the body of evidence suggests differently. I've said it before, you strap yourself in- you take responsibility.
Richie Slow said:
And going back to a previous point, every display briefing I've attended discussed the weather and invited participants to comment on it. Never,ever,ever have I seen a pilot pressured into a display they weren't happy to do. I cannot imagine ANY serious display pilot being afraid to say "sorry chaps, I don't like the look of things today". You say you know aviation, then you'll know that the decision to not fly is a pilot's supreme right and choice, and it is beyond question. Anyone who caves into pressure isn't the type of person I'd want to see in an aircraft.
What's the funding arrangements likely to be? Richie Slow said:
And going back to a previous point, every display briefing I've attended discussed the weather and invited participants to comment on it. Never,ever,ever have I seen a pilot pressured into a display they weren't happy to do. I cannot imagine ANY serious display pilot being afraid to say "sorry chaps, I don't like the look of things today". You say you know aviation, then you'll know that the decision to not fly is a pilot's supreme right and choice, and it is beyond question. Anyone who caves into pressure isn't the type of person I'd want to see in an aircraft.
One of my ex colleagues died during a display, Another ex colleague, also in the display, told me that in the briefing the pilot that died was nervous about doing a manoeuvre but still agreed to do it. I think it was a change to the original plan. I'm sure it's a rare situation but if you're a proud, 'go' minded individual, then stopping and saying you're uncomfortable in front of your peers in a briefing, isn't always as easy for everyone as you'd hope. el stovey said:
I'm sure it's a rare situation but if you're a proud, 'go' minded individual, then stopping and saying you're uncomfortable in front of your peers in a briefing, isn't always as easy for everyone as you'd hope.
As with many forms of work/duty.I work in the construction game. I can, supposedly, stop anyone on site from doing anything dangerous, not wearing the correct safety gear etc. Common sense, you would think. But no, I'm not going to pull up half a dozen blokes from concreting because they're not wearing goggles or something. Doesn't matter if there's a "no blame culture" or whatever promises the directors have made for their whistleblowing policy, there are a lot of times when pride (if that's the right word - maybe it's more accurate to say fear of stigma?) steps in.
As with the bin lorry driver in Glasgow - pride prevented him from stopping driving, with tragic consequences.
TooMany2cvs said:
So who would you trust?
I trust BADA and the aircraft owners and operators a hang sight more than I trust the AAIB (who were found to have taken various falsehoods and errors at face value in the Tiger Moth case) or the CAA (who have turned this whole thing into a gigantic profiteering bureaucracy exercise).As for pressure to fly - between personal pride, financial considerations and the need to maintain currency on type, you bet there's pressure to fly. Pilots still can and sometimes do say 'no go', but it's rare. I've seen many displays go ahead in conditions where I'd have thought twice.
I have read the report into Hoof Proudfoot's fatal crash on many occasions over the years. It does not blame him, and does not rule out some kind of control surface problem. There are myriad pilots' tales of flying the pants off P38s in the war at low level. The report notes that Proudfoot flew the aircraft in a way which was consistent with his Display Authorisation and status as a DA examiner, except a few times when he exceeded the envelope by a tiny margin on one day. This was duly amended for the next day's display. It happens to just about everyone. I understand the CAA had words for Kev Rumens when he stood the Vulcan on its starboard wingtip 70ft into the takeoff roll at RIAT earlier this year. It was still a brilliant piece of airmanship.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff