Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
Richie Slow said:
The root cause may never be explained fully (by the AAIB) , their role is to identify areas where lessons can be learned from accidents and make recommendations to the regulator, in our case the CAA. The CAA can then decide to accept and implement those recommendations or to reject them, or to make their own.
The AAIB is not interested in apportioning blame and they are not at liberty to share their 'evidence' with any criminal investigation, although a High Court ruling may be about to change that very soon. The danger [either way] is that it could make accident investigation quite territorial in the future with the Police wanting potential evidence preserved and the accident investigators working to a different remit. That's why air accidents have, pre-Shoreham, not attracted criminal investigations, so that investigations can be open and honest between all stakeholders without the imminent threat of prosecutions.
PS. You are probably right though
There have been several high profile cases of prosecutions within the International air transport world and it seems criminal prosecutions are becoming more prevalent. I think that society in general wants accountability, but in my view its can't have both an honest internal reporting culture and prosecution of employees, without a backwards step in preventing the reoccurrence of aircraft accidents.The AAIB is not interested in apportioning blame and they are not at liberty to share their 'evidence' with any criminal investigation, although a High Court ruling may be about to change that very soon. The danger [either way] is that it could make accident investigation quite territorial in the future with the Police wanting potential evidence preserved and the accident investigators working to a different remit. That's why air accidents have, pre-Shoreham, not attracted criminal investigations, so that investigations can be open and honest between all stakeholders without the imminent threat of prosecutions.
PS. You are probably right though
TSCfree said:
There have been several high profile cases of prosecutions within the International air transport world and it seems criminal prosecutions are becoming more prevalent. I think that society in general wants accountability, but in my view its can't have both an honest internal reporting culture and prosecution of employees, without a backwards step in preventing the reoccurrence of aircraft accidents.
I agree.Sorry, I wasn't very clear in what I meant. Cases brought by the CAA for low flying or other infringements have always existed in the background. It's the criminal cases brought by the CPS that could prevent potential evidence from being given so willingly to the AAIB in the future.
saaby93 said:
Final report said:
Full list of actions, and which follow on from the Action Report
Updated Action 7: With effect from 1 April 2016, a display authorisation will only remain valid for pilots of all registered aircraft who hold either an EU medical certificate issued by an AME or an ICAO medical certificate that is of an equivalent or higher standard.
Updated Action 10: Currency
- display pilots authorised to perform at standard level aerobatics in multiple categories including jet powered and helicopter categories must renew in those categories at least every two years; and
- where that authorisation also includes one or more of turboprop, multi-engine piston (MEP) or single-engine piston (SEP) categories they must rotate their renewal across those categories year on year.
Action 17: Pilots authorised to perform standard level aerobatics will only be permitted to perform loops or barrel rolls in civil registered ex-military jet aircraft at civil air displays if they have received explicit approval from a suitably qualified DAE. Approval will be made clear on a pilot’s DA.
Action 18: FDDs must verify the DA of pilots wishing to perform standard level loops and barrel rolls in civil registered ex-military jet aircraft to confirm that they have the authorisation to perform the manoeuvres.
Action 19: With immediate effect
- where a display aircraft is performing aerobatics at a speed of between 200 and 300 kt IAS, the minimum distance between the crowd and the display line must be 230 metres;
- where a display aircraft is performing at a speed in excess of 300 kt IAS, and the display includes any high speed manoeuvres towards the crowd, the minimum distance between the crowd and the display line must be 450 metres; and
- for light aircraft, with a maximum weight of less than 1200kg and operating speeds of less than 150 kt IAS throughout the display, the minimum separation is 150 metres.
Action 20: From publication of this report, and until further notice, operators of civil registered ex-military jet aircraft must seek formal approval from the CAA to perform aerobatic manoeuvres below 500 feet.
Action 21: With immediate effect the weather minima for flying displays by aircraft other than V/STOL aircraft operating in jet-borne flight/V/STOL mode, rotorcraft and other aircraft with a stalling speed below 50 knots, flying flat aerobatic displays, will be 500 ft cloud base BKN and OVC and 5 km visibility for both solo and formation displays.
Action 22: From the 2016 display season onwards all event organisers and FDDs must submit a post-air display report to the CAA. Pilots must also report any aspect of their display that could have caused a significant safety risk.
Action 23: FDDs will be responsible for reporting all breaches of safety at their display to the CAA. Where a ‘stop’ call is made during a display for reasons related to the fitness or competence of a pilot the circumstances leading to the ‘stop’ must be reported to the pilot concerned and to the CAA as soon as practicable. In such circumstances the CAA will issue a provisional suspension of the display authorisation to the pilot concerned.
Action 24: We will review the criteria and requirements for the acceptance of ex-military aircraft onto the civil register. This work will be completed by early 2017.
Action 25: We will require maintenance schedules for ex-military aircraft on the civil register to be provided to the CAA, so that we can harmonise schedules and improve the standard of these documents. This work will be completed by the end of 2016.
Action 26: We will work closely with the MAA and the Ministry of Defence to enhance the CAA’s understanding of the revision levels of key military publications on which maintenance schedules for which ex-military aircraft are based. This work will be completed by the end of 2016.
Action 27: We will conduct a review of all ex-military aircraft on the civil register that are required to have ejection seats fitted and active to ensure that they are necessary and appropriately maintained. This work should all be concluded by early 2017.
Action 28: We will establish continued airworthiness boards for different types and classes of aircraft to facilitate regular exchange of airworthiness information of type- or class-specific best practice. We expect the first of these meetings to be held before the end of May this year.
Action 29: The CAA will commence a programme of work to study and enhance understanding of human factor issues within the air display sector, starting with a full-day industry workshop on the causes and impact of human error for display pilots (date to be set).
Updated Action 7: With effect from 1 April 2016, a display authorisation will only remain valid for pilots of all registered aircraft who hold either an EU medical certificate issued by an AME or an ICAO medical certificate that is of an equivalent or higher standard.
Updated Action 10: Currency
- display pilots authorised to perform at standard level aerobatics in multiple categories including jet powered and helicopter categories must renew in those categories at least every two years; and
- where that authorisation also includes one or more of turboprop, multi-engine piston (MEP) or single-engine piston (SEP) categories they must rotate their renewal across those categories year on year.
Action 17: Pilots authorised to perform standard level aerobatics will only be permitted to perform loops or barrel rolls in civil registered ex-military jet aircraft at civil air displays if they have received explicit approval from a suitably qualified DAE. Approval will be made clear on a pilot’s DA.
Action 18: FDDs must verify the DA of pilots wishing to perform standard level loops and barrel rolls in civil registered ex-military jet aircraft to confirm that they have the authorisation to perform the manoeuvres.
Action 19: With immediate effect
- where a display aircraft is performing aerobatics at a speed of between 200 and 300 kt IAS, the minimum distance between the crowd and the display line must be 230 metres;
- where a display aircraft is performing at a speed in excess of 300 kt IAS, and the display includes any high speed manoeuvres towards the crowd, the minimum distance between the crowd and the display line must be 450 metres; and
- for light aircraft, with a maximum weight of less than 1200kg and operating speeds of less than 150 kt IAS throughout the display, the minimum separation is 150 metres.
Action 20: From publication of this report, and until further notice, operators of civil registered ex-military jet aircraft must seek formal approval from the CAA to perform aerobatic manoeuvres below 500 feet.
Action 21: With immediate effect the weather minima for flying displays by aircraft other than V/STOL aircraft operating in jet-borne flight/V/STOL mode, rotorcraft and other aircraft with a stalling speed below 50 knots, flying flat aerobatic displays, will be 500 ft cloud base BKN and OVC and 5 km visibility for both solo and formation displays.
Action 22: From the 2016 display season onwards all event organisers and FDDs must submit a post-air display report to the CAA. Pilots must also report any aspect of their display that could have caused a significant safety risk.
Action 23: FDDs will be responsible for reporting all breaches of safety at their display to the CAA. Where a ‘stop’ call is made during a display for reasons related to the fitness or competence of a pilot the circumstances leading to the ‘stop’ must be reported to the pilot concerned and to the CAA as soon as practicable. In such circumstances the CAA will issue a provisional suspension of the display authorisation to the pilot concerned.
Action 24: We will review the criteria and requirements for the acceptance of ex-military aircraft onto the civil register. This work will be completed by early 2017.
Action 25: We will require maintenance schedules for ex-military aircraft on the civil register to be provided to the CAA, so that we can harmonise schedules and improve the standard of these documents. This work will be completed by the end of 2016.
Action 26: We will work closely with the MAA and the Ministry of Defence to enhance the CAA’s understanding of the revision levels of key military publications on which maintenance schedules for which ex-military aircraft are based. This work will be completed by the end of 2016.
Action 27: We will conduct a review of all ex-military aircraft on the civil register that are required to have ejection seats fitted and active to ensure that they are necessary and appropriately maintained. This work should all be concluded by early 2017.
Action 28: We will establish continued airworthiness boards for different types and classes of aircraft to facilitate regular exchange of airworthiness information of type- or class-specific best practice. We expect the first of these meetings to be held before the end of May this year.
Action 29: The CAA will commence a programme of work to study and enhance understanding of human factor issues within the air display sector, starting with a full-day industry workshop on the causes and impact of human error for display pilots (date to be set).
And it's not just jet operators that are questioning their air display future either, see this depressing post (rant) from Peter T of Hanger 11 about the CAA
https://www.facebook.com/Hangar11Collection/posts/...
aeropilot said:
In other words, we (the CAA) have decided we don't won't any civilian operated ex-mil jet aircraft flying in the UK,
Surely it doesnt read like that at all.You have to remember that the AAIB have found a set of circumstances that have come together to produce what happened at Shoreham, and there was a feeling about incidents at other shows too about things creeping away from where they should be
The last section about human factors, not shrugging shoulders - ho hum that's the way it is, but trying to find out more about the pressure on pilots at displays seems welcome
saaby93 said:
aeropilot said:
In other words, we (the CAA) have decided we don't won't any civilian operated ex-mil jet aircraft flying in the UK,
Surely it doesnt read like that at all.saaby93 said:
You have to remember that the AAIB have found a set of circumstances that have come together to produce what happened at Shoreham
We don't know what the AAIB have found yet, as the AAIB haven't produced their final report yet, it's not due for another good few months yet. Only their preliminary report has been published.Richie Slow said:
Should such aircraft even be flying under a p2f on an informal currency and display basis? I think the answer to that is obvious!
Unfortunately, despite lobbying from some owners, the CAA refuses to consider types like the Hunter and JP for a CofA. They will only allow them to fly on a Permit.Cobnapint said:
As they haven't confirmed mechanical failure as the cause of the accident - following their logic - why not all jets..?
One does wonder. There are far fewer instances of failures with the Hunter or the Avon engine (even the earlier 122-series in the T.7s and F.4s on which they were based) than there are of Merlins going phut. Both Lancasters have had in-flight engine fires in the UK within the last two years, and at least two Spitfires got quite seriously bent last summer when their Merlins quit - yet those are approved to fly, even with a passenger in the 2-seat T.9s like Carolyn Grace's ML407... the grounding of the Hunter as a type is utterly unjustifiable! There are also directives out now on all ex-military jet engines, demanding proof that the engine has never been left uninhibited and without running for longer than 30 days. Given that some of them are 65 years old and/or have been through multiple countries' air forces and multiple civilian owners, this is impossible to prove.As for the manoeuvre which ended in the Hunter crashing, it was NOT a loop. You enter and exit a loop in the same direction. That looked like a half-Cuban to me.
oakdale said:
s3fella said:
Any more news on this as we enter airshow season?
Is Andy flying this year...?
If he is, will someone please ask him to be a bit more careful.Is Andy flying this year...?
According to the DM Mr Hill is being investigated for possible manslaughter....
Daily Mail said:
today it has emerged that officers are investigating him on suspicion of manslaughter, alleging that he may have endangered lives by breaching strict air navigation laws
AndDaily Mail said:
He has not been arrested or charged and could still face no further action. Police will complete their report on the crash and submit it to prosecutors, who will decide whether or not to press on with a trial.
I don't think we're at the end of this terrible story yet.Eric Mc said:
The police want to prosecute it seems to me. However, they cannot move until the AAIB releases all the data they have - which they haven't done yet as the accident investigation is not complete.
I suspect you are correct Eric.Aside from the police I get the feeling some in authority feel the need to make an example made of this entire episode, some thoughts good, some not so good possibly.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff