Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
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.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?
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.
Or are they just asking what they plan to do as the display?
Looks like incompetence from both the pilot and organisers, and these people call themselves professionals!
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.
Some of those recommendations are just good practise from a H&S perspective. The later recommendations of the bulletin will be pretty hard to achieve (IMO) without preventing many of these displays happening. That decreases the size of the industry further and makes their recommendations about avoiding conflict of interest harder still.
Still it seems like the CAA have ignored AAIB recommendations before, maybe they will again!
Still it seems like the CAA have ignored AAIB recommendations before, maybe they will again!
pc.iow said:
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?
Read the report.Or are they just asking what they plan to do as the display?
How do you think they expect an organiser to decide whether every single building, road or possible pedestrian congegration under the display area is within the legal limits of distance from the aircraft (or its projected flightpath if things go wrong) unless they know - exactly - the actual intended flightpath of the entire display?
AAIB do not have the knowledge base or indeed remit for this sort of thing, and this interim report is just ending up with people ignorant of the real issues being led to conclusions with the help of equally ignorant media. Things absolutely have to change but if every recommendation were acted upon, airshows would basically cease to exist in the UK.
Let's just remind ourselves how many innocent people die on the A27 every year, yet no fuss is made about regulating that risk out of existence...
Edited by DamienB on Sunday 13th March 19:29
Simpo Two said:
DamienB said:
Let's just remind ourselves how many innocent people die on the A27 every year, yet no fuss is made about regulating that risk out of existence...
Well, they've done rather well out of speed cameras... better to make money than to ban traffic eh?!DamienB said:
Read the report.
How do you think they expect an organiser to decide whether every single building, road or possible pedestrian congegration under the display area is within the legal limits of distance from the aircraft (or its projected flightpath if things go wrong) unless they know - exactly - the actual intended flightpath of the entire display?
AAIB do not have the knowledge base or indeed remit for this sort of thing, and this interim report is just ending up with people ignorant of the real issues being led to conclusions with the help of equally ignorant media. Things absolutely have to change but if every recommendation were acted upon, airshows would basically cease to exist in the UK.
Let's just remind ourselves how many innocent people die on the A27 every year, yet no fuss is made about regulating that risk out of existence...
Very few people die on the A27 every year, despite it being a long and busy road. Did you mean that ?How do you think they expect an organiser to decide whether every single building, road or possible pedestrian congegration under the display area is within the legal limits of distance from the aircraft (or its projected flightpath if things go wrong) unless they know - exactly - the actual intended flightpath of the entire display?
AAIB do not have the knowledge base or indeed remit for this sort of thing, and this interim report is just ending up with people ignorant of the real issues being led to conclusions with the help of equally ignorant media. Things absolutely have to change but if every recommendation were acted upon, airshows would basically cease to exist in the UK.
Let's just remind ourselves how many innocent people die on the A27 every year, yet no fuss is made about regulating that risk out of existence...
Edited by DamienB on Sunday 13th March 19:29
saaby93 said:
Final report due early summer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-358732...
What's worrying is that the Police are strong-arming the AAIB into providing them with information that may lead to prosecutions. That's not the remit of the AAIB and I'm concerned who might be in the firing line. Pilot (obviously), maintenance organisation (for irregularities), display organisers (for their alleged 'inadequate' risk assessment)? Culpability could be extended quite some distance........http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-358732...
Personally, I think that if you strap yourself into a fast jet you accept a burden of responsibility. But that doesn't mean that a prosecution serves any real purpose now.
Richie Slow said:
saaby93 said:
Final report due early summer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-358732...
But that doesn't mean that a prosecution serves any real purpose now.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-358732...
The latest special bulletin contained some interesting wording....
"In 2014 a display by the pilot of G-BXFI, in another aircraft type and at a different venue, was
stopped by the FDD of that display following concerns about the execution of a manoeuvre.
A CAA Flight Standards Officer (FSO) was present but did not witness the occurrence.
Following an informal discussion with the pilot later that day the CAA took no further action
and did not formally record the occurrence. The occurrence was not otherwise investigated
and was not reported to the AAIB. It may not have been apparent to those involved that
the duty to report could apply to such occurrences at flying displays or they may have
concluded that this occurrence was not reportable. Nevertheless, the occurrence could
have provided an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence."
I can't remember the last time, or even if there was one, where the AAIB publicly raised questions about a pilot's competence. Without the Stockport incident such a chain of thought would carry a lot less weight.
Was he reckless? Yes, I believe so.
Was he flying beyond his level of competence? Yes, I believe that too.
Was the accident avoidable? Yes. See above.^^^
Should such aircraft even be flying under a p2f on an informal currency and display basis? I think the answer to that is obvious!
"In 2014 a display by the pilot of G-BXFI, in another aircraft type and at a different venue, was
stopped by the FDD of that display following concerns about the execution of a manoeuvre.
A CAA Flight Standards Officer (FSO) was present but did not witness the occurrence.
Following an informal discussion with the pilot later that day the CAA took no further action
and did not formally record the occurrence. The occurrence was not otherwise investigated
and was not reported to the AAIB. It may not have been apparent to those involved that
the duty to report could apply to such occurrences at flying displays or they may have
concluded that this occurrence was not reportable. Nevertheless, the occurrence could
have provided an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence."
I can't remember the last time, or even if there was one, where the AAIB publicly raised questions about a pilot's competence. Without the Stockport incident such a chain of thought would carry a lot less weight.
Was he reckless? Yes, I believe so.
Was he flying beyond his level of competence? Yes, I believe that too.
Was the accident avoidable? Yes. See above.^^^
Should such aircraft even be flying under a p2f on an informal currency and display basis? I think the answer to that is obvious!
dr_gn said:
Richie Slow said:
saaby93 said:
Final report due early summer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-358732...
But that doesn't mean that a prosecution serves any real purpose now.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-358732...
It's because we would be using hindsight to retrospectively apply standards that were not the norm at that point in time. Whether they should have been is another matter.
Richie Slow said:
The latest special bulletin contained some interesting wording....
"In 2014 a display by the pilot of G-BXFI, in another aircraft type and at a different venue, was
stopped by the FDD of that display following concerns about the execution of a manoeuvre.
A CAA Flight Standards Officer (FSO) was present but did not witness the occurrence.
Following an informal discussion with the pilot later that day the CAA took no further action
and did not formally record the occurrence. The occurrence was not otherwise investigated
and was not reported to the AAIB. It may not have been apparent to those involved that
the duty to report could apply to such occurrences at flying displays or they may have
concluded that this occurrence was not reportable. Nevertheless, the occurrence could
have provided an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence."
I can't remember the last time, or even if there was one, where the AAIB publicly raised questions about a pilot's competence.
That read to me that they were questioning procedures rather than the pilots competence. "In 2014 a display by the pilot of G-BXFI, in another aircraft type and at a different venue, was
stopped by the FDD of that display following concerns about the execution of a manoeuvre.
A CAA Flight Standards Officer (FSO) was present but did not witness the occurrence.
Following an informal discussion with the pilot later that day the CAA took no further action
and did not formally record the occurrence. The occurrence was not otherwise investigated
and was not reported to the AAIB. It may not have been apparent to those involved that
the duty to report could apply to such occurrences at flying displays or they may have
concluded that this occurrence was not reportable. Nevertheless, the occurrence could
have provided an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence."
I can't remember the last time, or even if there was one, where the AAIB publicly raised questions about a pilot's competence.
At that point the Pilot puts on a display the FDD monitors it to check its within bounds of the venue
Either one can pull it at any point. The FDD did - normal procedure.
AAIB is asking whether that should have led to a review of what led to the display being aborted including an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence.
It didn't pass judgement one way or the other and without a review surely couldnt.
saaby93 said:
hat read to me that they were questioning procedures rather than the pilots competence.
At that point the Pilot puts on a display the FDD monitors it to check its within bounds of the venue
Either one can pull it at any point. The FDD did - normal procedure.
AAIB is asking whether that should have led to a review of what led to the display being aborted including an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence.
It didn't pass judgement one way or the other and without a review surely couldnt.
The AAIB never does pass judgement, nor should it. It does suggest that an opportunity existed to question the competence and that will probably be addressed again with the recommendations contained within the final report. I don't believe that the FDD's in either display were at fault, they were working to the standards that were deemed normal and acceptable at that point in time. With hindsight we can say that the writing was on the wall. That is unfair.At that point the Pilot puts on a display the FDD monitors it to check its within bounds of the venue
Either one can pull it at any point. The FDD did - normal procedure.
AAIB is asking whether that should have led to a review of what led to the display being aborted including an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence.
It didn't pass judgement one way or the other and without a review surely couldnt.
I've been involved in displays where 'certain' pilots were not allowed to display as a result of the display director's assessment of their abilities/ reputation. I've also seen displays cut short and pilots being told "don't come again". Maybe the old school display directors have gone from the scene, none of the guys I knew would ever have have considered financial factors as the least bit relevant to their remit. They would never have been involved in the kind of 'cash-cow' airshows that have sprung up recently.
I think a "tightening-up" by the regulator is absolutely necessary. Shoreham just highlighted the weak areas .
Richie Slow said:
I've been involved in displays where 'certain' pilots were not allowed to display as a result of the display director's assessment of their abilities/ reputation. I've also seen displays cut short and pilots being told "don't come again".
Maybe soBut in that piece we're talking about normal occurrence
Do you have any other instances of things that didnt happen?
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 23 March 10:58
saaby93 said:
aybe so
But in that piece we're talking about normal occurrence where the FDD called an Abort and where the pilot wasnt told 'dont come again' no the FDD examined about why he made the call.
Do you have any other instances of things that didnt happen?
A "knock it off" call should never be considered a normal occurrence. It is the result of an actual or a foreseeable risk and should never be resolved by a mere word in one's ear afterwards. There has been a gradual shift towards a more relaxed environment where friends sign each other's DAs off, maintenance schedules have been allowed to slide, and FDD's don't vet or police their displaying pilots abilities or their routines. That was the state of the display circus in 2015.But in that piece we're talking about normal occurrence where the FDD called an Abort and where the pilot wasnt told 'dont come again' no the FDD examined about why he made the call.
Do you have any other instances of things that didnt happen?
But still, I don't believe that prosecutions are particularly appropriate for anybody involved. It is the industry that allowed these things to happen, and the industry will be addressed. Painful as that may be.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff