Crash at Shoreham Air show

[dr_gn]

Dr Jekyll said:

dr_gn said:

So if they're not relevant, why does the interim report into the Shoreham crash mention them specifically instead of "jets" in general" These reports don't usually contain irrelevant information.

Ejection seat failures don't seem relevánt to the crash either. It could be a case of wanting to tightén rules anyway in line with the govt principle of never letting a disaster go to waste. Ejection seats were already recommended for swept wing jets even before this.

The combination of a swept-wing aircraft designed for high speed flight, amateur display pilots and a functional ejector seat seems completely logical and relevant to me.

Being able to eject obviously gives the pilot more opportunity to save his own life and the lives of others. If it had turned out that Hill (or any other potential display pilot) tried but failed to eject while the aircraft was on a trajectory ending in an empty field, he'd then have no choice but to try to recover a partially controlled aircraft from an impossible situation. The swept wings simply increase the chance of pilot error in the first place, and make recovery for the inexperienced that much more difficult.

Not sure if we're at crossed purposes, but it seems a fair reccommendation to me.

[TooMany2cvs]

Dr Jekyll said:

Ejection seat failures don't seem relevánt to the crash either. It could be a case of wanting to tightén rules anyway in line with the govt principle of never letting a disaster go to waste. Ejection seats were already recommended for swept wing jets even before this.

Surely whether an ejection seat works or not simply determines whether an uncontrollable plane finishes up crashing just there with or without the pilot still on board?
If the seat ejected when it shouldn't have, then the seat has caused the crash.

AIUI, though, the focus on the seat in this investigation is because of increased risk to ground rescue crews.

[saaby93]

TooMany2cvs said:

AIUI, though, the focus on the seat in this investigation is because of increased risk to ground rescue crews.

Theyve questioned the whole maintenance strategy for ejector seats, otherwise there could be no pilot in the plane when required

[TooMany2cvs]

saaby93 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

AIUI, though, the focus on the seat in this investigation is because of increased risk to ground rescue crews.

Theyve questioned the whole maintenance strategy for ejector seats, otherwise there could be no pilot in the plane when required

Like I said...

TooMany2cvs said:

If the seat ejected when it shouldn't have, then the seat has caused the crash.

[saaby93]

[RoverP6B]

pc.iow said:

HoHoHo said:

Richie Slow said:

RoverP6B said:

..............

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



.

Really?

Although I'm sure you'll refuse to accept as fact anything contained within the AAIB interim report anyway.

I watched the aircraft live and the engine did not flameout or make any strange noises as far as I'm aware.

It does not matter you were there or not. If you're not an aviation expert you simply could not know what your talking about.

Of course being there and knowing what a failing Avon sounds/doesn't sound like helps. All I said was that there was speculation. Not that there was any substance to the matter.

Chrisgr31 said:

There was an item on the local news (ITV I think) earlier referring to the additional costs that airshows are going to have following this accident.

We'll see how many cease altogether.

That's what the CAA want you to think. That it's all safety-driven. Not true. They've been plotting this for quite a while.

[JuniorD]

RoverP6B said:

That's what the CAA want you to think. That it's all safety-driven. Not true. They've been plotting this for quite a while.

I've heard that the CAA actually hate aircaft. Apparently if you go into any toilet cubicle at Aviation House, you will notice that on all the grout between tiles, it is repeatedly written in tiny ball point pen "we hate aircraft".

[RoverP6B]

They're certainly deeply unpopular with their clients at the moment. The fee increase was being mooted a year ago.

[Simpo Two]

Local news just reported that the Red Arrows' appearance at the Suffolk Show has been cancelled, the reason cited being there are too many main roads nearby. They added the Shoreham crash was nothing to do with it.

[saaby93]

More from the beeb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35726583

Air shows must adopt new safety measures or face cancellation, the Civil Aviation Authority has said.
apparantly

[marksx]

"Larger shows with 31 or more displays face a possible increase from £2,695 to more than £20,000, including a new flying display post-event charge of up to £15,000."

There goes the free airshow and many others then.

[Robertj21a]

marksx said:

"Larger shows with 31 or more displays face a possible increase from £2,695 to more than £20,000, including a new flying display post-event charge of up to £15,000."

There goes the free airshow and many others then.

Presumably, not a major problem if the numbers attending air shows are anything like what has been quoted on here. Just means they will now have to pay a few quid for the entertainment (like anything else really).

[StephenP]

Interesting Press Release in response to Andrew Haines comments yesterday....

http://www.bada-uk.com/2016/03/joint-statement-by-...

[saaby93]

StephenP said:

Interesting Press Release in response to Andrew Haines comments yesterday....

http://www.bada-uk.com/2016/03/joint-statement-by-...

Theyre not happy

PILOT ORGANISATIONS REJECT CAA CEO’S CLAIMS THAT THE AIR DISPLAY COMMUNITY HAS DECLINED TO CO-OPERATE WITH ITS POST-SHOREHAM CRASH CHANGES TO AIRSHOWS

“The assertion by the CAA’s Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Haines, reported in The Times yesterday, that there has been resistance in the air display community to the changes being proposed is factually incorrect. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire airshow community has been focussed on drilling into the core safety issues that stem from the Shoreham tragedy to assess what changes can sensibly be made to prevent a recurrence.

There has been great anxiety about the massive increase in charges, made without realistic consultation or with any meaningful impact assessment. To suggest, however, that the airshow community has declined to “co-operate with reforms such as rigorous checks on pilots, new training for organisers etc” is completely false.

That Mr Haines should compound this blatant piece of politicking by a public body by saying that “the community seem to think that Shoreham is a one-off and therefore you can carry on as you are” is totally inaccurate, and a reprehensible statement from the CEO of the CAA. Before Shoreham, Mr Haines carried out cuts within the CAA budget such that many departments were unable to exercise proper regulatory management of various aspects of the aviation industry. In the case of the air display community, the small, hard-working office, responsible for the regulation of air displays, was sinking under the workload. The system was sustained only by the professional involvement of Display Authorisation Evaluators (DAEs) from the airshow community, and by the presence of a sound and well-framed regulatory system evolved over many decades.

This system was not perfect, but was subject to constant review, thanks to a healthy relationship between the small CAA office and the community at large. The system was admired throughout Europe for its practical approach to air display operation and the focus on safety. As part of the hollowing-out of the CAA, as late as mid 2015, Mr Haines was personally involved in trying to offload the responsibility for Airshow management, with its associated deregulation, to the British Air Display Association (BADA). BADA declined, as they perceived this to be a retrograde step with regard to regulatory oversight and fundamental safety.

More recently, post Shoreham, the CAA understandably instituted a top-down review of air displays, in which the air display community were anticipating their professional involvement, similar to the last major review, where the split between the CAA and the professional community was approximately 50/50. We were dismayed when it became apparent that, apart from a little window dressing by involving the inclusion in the team of an Air Marshal, this was to be an in-house exercise with no involvement of the display community at all. It should be obvious that the expertise for the disciplines of all aspects of displays largely resides with the air display community itself; the CAA is populated in the main by officials, many of whom having little or no understanding of aviation, let alone the complexities of aerobatic flying display routines.

By way of example, last month’s regular pre-season BADA symposium, an event attended by over 350 military and civilian air show organisers and pilots, was addressed by a CAA representative with little or no understanding of aviation matters who had most recently served as a Civil Servant with the NHS. Such things gave added impetus to the vigorous lobbying by the air display community to be involved in the process, and only at the eleventh hour did the CAA accept a single respected member on to the review panel.

Mr Haines has chosen to deflect criticism of him and the CAA by falsely accusing the display community of obdurate behaviour, which the public should be aware is completely untrue. The CAA has yet to issue the full details of the regulation changes even at this late hour, so display organisers have no regulations with which they can refuse to comply.

Air shows enjoy huge public support. Thanks to the professional co-operation between the community composed of highly experienced display pilots and evaluators and display organisers, the British people have been able to enjoy a safe entertainment without a fatality amongst the public for over 60 years. Of course, post Shoreham everyone needs to review how, if possible, we can prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy, but imposing draconian changes, with inadequate consultation, risks not only depriving the public of something they enjoy but also depriving young people of an experience which for so many has inspired them to become aviators or aeronautical engineers, contributing to one of the UK’s most successful, world-leading industries.

The intemperate and irresponsible approach by the CAA suggests that these rushed measures are not driven so much by a desire to enhance air show safety as to pre-empt any criticism of the CAA which might arise from forthcoming enquiries. Accordingly, we call upon Mr Haines to retract his criticism.”

[BrabusMog]

StephenP said:

Interesting Press Release in response to Andrew Haines comments yesterday....

http://www.bada-uk.com/2016/03/joint-statement-by-...

"We don't agree with it, so we'll call someone a Civil Servant and sit on our high horse as we know best." Ridiculous statement, and that's something I say with a heavy heart as I have always loved airshows. But it seems fairly obvious to me that whoever wrote that is thinking for their own interests.

[Chrisgr31]

BrabusMog said:

"We don't agree with it, so we'll call someone a Civil Servant and sit on our high horse as we know best." Ridiculous statement, and that's something I say with a heavy heart as I have always loved airshows. But it seems fairly obvious to me that whoever wrote that is thinking for their own interests.

Well they will be thinking of their own self interests but if the facts within the statement are true, and I suspect they are then I think the final paragraph is probably the appropriate one.

From the information that has been released so far it seems patently obvious that the CAA are going to come in for criticism. It has been suggested in this thread that pilot error caused the accident but it appears that the CAA did not regulate the ejector seats properly nor the maintenance regime.

[HoHoHo]

Chrisgr31 said:

BrabusMog said:

"We don't agree with it, so we'll call someone a Civil Servant and sit on our high horse as we know best." Ridiculous statement, and that's something I say with a heavy heart as I have always loved airshows. But it seems fairly obvious to me that whoever wrote that is thinking for their own interests.

Well they will be thinking of their own self interests but if the facts within the statement are true, and I suspect they are then I think the final paragraph is probably the appropriate one.

From the information that has been released so far it seems patently obvious that the CAA are going to come in for criticism. It has been suggested in this thread that pilot error caused the accident but it appears that the CAA did not regulate the ejector seats properly nor the maintenance regime.

Are you suggesting it's the CAA's fault because they didn't regulate a proper maintenance regime?

[Chrisgr31]

HoHoHo said:

Are you suggesting it's the CAA's fault because they didn't regulate a proper maintenance regime?

No, seem to have missed the word also out.

If the theory on the thread is correct then the blame for the accident will fall on the pilot, however it does look as if the CAA will be criticised for their failings, which may not have had any impact in this accident but have been revealed by it.

That better wording?

[HoHoHo]

Chrisgr31 said:

HoHoHo said:

Are you suggesting it's the CAA's fault because they didn't regulate a proper maintenance regime?

No, seem to have missed the word also out.

If the theory on the thread is correct then the blame for the accident will fall on the pilot, however it does look as if the CAA will be criticised for their failings, which may not have had any impact in this accident but have been revealed by it.

That better wording?

Unfortunately life is a learning curve and sometimes accidents reveal shortfalls that may not have directly contributed but might have an impact at some time in the future

[Hilts]

BrabusMog said:

StephenP said:

Interesting Press Release in response to Andrew Haines comments yesterday....

http://www.bada-uk.com/2016/03/joint-statement-by-...

"We don't agree with it, so we'll call someone a Civil Servant and sit on our high horse as we know best." Ridiculous statement, and that's something I say with a heavy heart as I have always loved airshows. But it seems fairly obvious to me that whoever wrote that is thinking for their own interests.

Which parts of the statement are ridiculous exactly and why?