Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Richie Slow]

Chrisgr31 said:

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.

This ^^^

The CAA would appear to have been far too relaxed about letting operators regulate themselves. The CAA [at least] need to be seen to be tightening up their practices, much to the discomfort of many. BADA are being a tad foolish by publicly slating the regulator, there can be only one winner and that's a foregone conclusion.

[Bluedot]

Well.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35773975

[Eric Mc]

Hmmm - there's a bit of a difference between " not being aware" (as per headline) and "not being FULLY aware" (as per the article itself).

The headline intimates that the organisers didn't know what eoutine the Hunter pilot was going to do.

The article intimates that he didn't stick exactly to what they had expected.

[saaby93]

Bluedot said:

Well.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35773975

Is this the link
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...
no thats the December one

[karma mechanic]

Latest update is https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...

[Tom_C76]

Eric Mc said:

Hmmm - there's a bit of a difference between " not being aware" (as per headline) and "not being FULLY aware" (as per the article itself).

The headline intimates that the organisers didn't know what eoutine the Hunter pilot was going to do.

The article intimates that he didn't stick exactly to what they had expected.

The article state that the Director wasn't aware of what the pilot was planning to do, whether or not he stuck to that plan.

[Richie Slow]

"The AAIB says the CAA should "introduce a process to immediately suspend the Display Authorisation of a pilot whose competence is in doubt, pending investigation of the occurrence"."

This may suggest that after the Stockport incident the writing was on the wall for anyone who chose to see it. But I'll wait for the actual report before I make any further inferences. I don't trust the accuracy of the press when they quote people/bodies as saying certain things.

[Eric Mc]

Tom_C76 said:

The article state that the Director wasn't aware of what the pilot was planning to do, whether or not he stuck to that plan.

I find that hard to believe.

Is it really claiming that the air show committee at Shoreham were not aware of the routine that the display pilot was going to carry out?

[DamienB]

Eric Mc said:

I find that hard to believe.

Is it really claiming that the air show committee at Shoreham were not aware of the routine that the display pilot was going to carry out?

Yes, and that's pretty much standard in terms of being unaware at which *exact* point every single manouevre or turn is going to happen, which seems to be what the AAIB think should happen. The AAIB are betraying a total ignorance of display flying if they expect display pilots to be able to provide to airshow organisers - months in advance so it can be factored into their risk assessment - the precise make-up of their display. And pull a little more or less G at any point or vary your speed by a few knots and it's all nonsense anyway as the routine adjusts to the changes - and weather conditions.

If the CAA take onboard every "safety" recommendation in this interim report, UK airshows will become a) much fewer in number and b) so high and far away and lacking in energetic manouevres as to be largely pointless.

[Richie Slow]

Farnborough has had a policy of agreeing and approving specific display routines for many years and it's served them well. Maybe there is a consideration for weather affected displays but it's a better system than giving someone four minutes of airspace and saying 'do what you like'. I'm sure that wasn't the case at Shoreham, nor should it happen anywhere. It's just one of the areas where the CAA is tightening up, they like specifics and dislike vagaries. That's the nature of an efficient regulator, and they haven't always been one. Although maybe not relevant to the outcome at Shoreham, a number of issues have come to light that should not have existed.

[Eric Mc]

Do air display pilots notify air show organisers of their intended display routines as a matter of course?

[Richie Slow]

Eric Mc said:

Do air display pilots notify air show organisers of their intended display routines as a matter of course?

Not often, although Farnborough has always stood out as being strict about it. Prior approval is a necessity.

[DamienB]

And happens days in advance, not months...

[pc.iow]

DamienB said:

Eric Mc said:

I find that hard to believe.

Is it really claiming that the air show committee at Shoreham were not aware of the routine that the display pilot was going to carry out?

Yes, and that's pretty much standard in terms of being unaware at which *exact* point every single manouevre or turn is going to happen, which seems to be what the AAIB think should happen. The AAIB are betraying a total ignorance of display flying if they expect display pilots to be able to provide to airshow organisers - months in advance so it can be factored into their risk assessment - the precise make-up of their display. And pull a little more or less G at any point or vary your speed by a few knots and it's all nonsense anyway as the routine adjusts to the changes - and weather conditions.

If the CAA take onboard every "safety" recommendation in this interim report, UK airshows will become a) much fewer in number and b) so high and far away and lacking in energetic manouevres as to be largely pointless.

Are they actually asking for the "*exact* point every single manouevre or turn is going to happen the precise make-up of their display. And pull a little more or less G at any point or vary your speed by a few knots"
Or are they just asking what they plan to do as the display?

[essayer]

TBH I am really surprised to learn that flying displays at most public events are not pre planned/approved by the organisers.

[Richie Slow]

essayer said:

TBH I am really surprised to learn that flying displays at most public events are not pre planned/approved by the organisers.

I think that's where the CAA will be looking next. The 'make it up as you go along'/ adaptable routine was recognised long ago as an ingredient in many display accidents.

[Gandahar]

Interesting report

The aircraft got a spanking a while back as we all know. Now the organsisers get a spanking too, basically lack of control and the space in all directions was not big enough. The pilot will get a spanking next I'm pretty sure. Probably deserved as well.

What interests me from the report is that the CAA is recommended to be like the FAA! So it sounds like the CAA is a bit backward when it comes to airshows just like the people organising it.

Also note the minimum height recommendation of 500ft with no exceptions.

[Simpo Two]

It was the main item on BBC 6.00pm news - so tune in at 10pm and see if the media got it right. Includes compulsory interview with bereaved relative of course.

[pc.iow]

pc.iow said:

DamienB said:

Eric Mc said:

I find that hard to believe.

Is it really claiming that the air show committee at Shoreham were not aware of the routine that the display pilot was going to carry out?

Yes, and that's pretty much standard in terms of being unaware at which *exact* point every single manouevre or turn is going to happen, which seems to be what the AAIB think should happen. The AAIB are betraying a total ignorance of display flying if they expect display pilots to be able to provide to airshow organisers - months in advance so it can be factored into their risk assessment - the precise make-up of their display. And pull a little more or less G at any point or vary your speed by a few knots and it's all nonsense anyway as the routine adjusts to the changes - and weather conditions.

If the CAA take onboard every "safety" recommendation in this interim report, UK airshows will become a) much fewer in number and b) so high and far away and lacking in energetic manouevres as to be largely pointless.

Are they actually asking for the "*exact* point every single manouevre or turn is going to happen the precise make-up of their display. And pull a little more or less G at any point or vary your speed by a few knots"
Or are they just asking what they plan to do as the display?

I'll assume its not then.

Looks like incompetence from both the pilot and organisers, and these people call themselves professionals!

[Chrisgr31]

Richie Slow said:

Not often, although Farnborough has always stood out as being strict about it. Prior approval is a necessity.

Hasn't Farnborough got quite strict flying areas due to the number of airports/airfields around, the location of housing etc?

It is a surprise that they have managed to get the radar traces from previous displays a year earlier, and its also a surprise that the pilot doesn't give at least a basic description of their display.

Presumably when a pilot gives his display it will be a fine weather display he'll give details of, and say that in the event of cloud of less than X I'll do y instead etc.

As someone has said no doubt the pilot will be the next one for criticism and the ultimate blame for the accident.