Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Riley Blue]

Judged by whom other than the media?

[5150]

Judged on the media's interpretation of the AAIB report, I would imagine.

I don't see it as complex.

As to whether he'll be prosecuted, is a matter for the CPS. As to whether or not it's in the public interest, I would very much doubt what good it will do by sending him to prison.

[Robertj21a]

Riley Blue said:

Judged by whom other than the media?

Have you read the report ?

[hornetrider]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The airshow organisers have pretty much thrown him under the bus there.

[Riley Blue]

Robertj21a said:

Riley Blue said:

Judged by whom other than the media?

Have you read the report ?

If you mean the one which includes, "The sole objective of the investigation under these Regulations is the prevention of accidents and incidents and not the apportioning of blame or liability."

Yes, I have.

[Robertj21a]

Riley Blue said:

Robertj21a said:

Riley Blue said:

Judged by whom other than the media?

Have you read the report ?

If you mean the one which includes, "The sole objective of the investigation under these Regulations is the prevention of accidents and incidents and not the apportioning of blame or liability."

Yes, I have.

Good.

So, who do you think, other than the pilot, was flying that plane ?

[Simpo Two]

Robertj21a said:

Riley Blue said:

Robertj21a said:

Riley Blue said:

Judged by whom other than the media?

Have you read the report ?

If you mean the one which includes, "The sole objective of the investigation under these Regulations is the prevention of accidents and incidents and not the apportioning of blame or liability."

Yes, I have.

Good.

So, who do you think, other than the pilot, was flying that plane ?

That's not a connected question. If the 'objective of the investigation is the prevention of accidents', you can't prevent an accident that's already happened so one deduces it will look at ways to stop it happening again. It's looking forwards not backwards.

[Riley Blue]

Did you know, for example, that the report contains this, "

At present it is not known if the altimeter was serviceable and displaying the correct altitude during the loop. Technical analysis is on-going by AAIB which may provide further information on this point."

[KTF]

Riley Blue said:

Did you know, for example, that the report contains this, "

At present it is not known if the altimeter was serviceable and displaying the correct altitude during the loop. Technical analysis is on-going by AAIB which may provide further information on this point."

Well, it was probably damaged in the impact so they have no way of knowing.

[pushthebutton]

OpulentBob said:

That's my assessment of the documents.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a pilot, but I do read a lot of accident reports and official documents, so am quite comfortable reading between the lines.)

My money is on no prosecution for the dick behind the stick, though.

There's definitely a dick on one end of that stick you're pointing.

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No, they mentioned that the entry height and throttle settings used would have been appropriate for the Jet Provost he flew the previous week. It's certainly a valid inference that he MAY have confused the settings. But it's very different from saying he didn't know whether he was in a Hunter or a Jet Provost.

[bitchstewie]

I'd assume the AAIB are pretty thorough and have access to all the evidence and information vs. what's been made public?

I'd also assume that had the chap been in a lorry and misjudged a turn and ploughed into a crowd full of people that the Police would be involved as some kind of view would need to be taken on whether the standard of driving fell below that expected of a competent driver.

I don't know if he should be charged or not, that's for the CPS to decide, but I'm mystified by this rose-spectacled view of some posters that because it's an aircrash the only outcome should be that "lessons must be learned"

[hidetheelephants]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You seem to have overlooked the sentence I've put in bold italics; there's enough blame to go round everyone.

[Caruso]

Does anyone know if the pilot's license been suspended or revoked?

[sugerbear]

When a pilot takes part in one of these events what should the protocal be?

Do the organizers have to tell the pilot what the settings for the plan should be (thrust, height) for their display or is it a case of "fly over there, do some tricks Brian and land here when you are finished" Do the pilots have responsibility to know and plan all that stuff?

[saaby93]

bhstewie said:

I don't know if he should be charged or not, that's for the CPS to decide, but I'm mystified by this rose-spectacled view of some posters that because it's an aircrash the only outcome should be that "lessons must be learned"

Not sure anyones saying that but the way AAIB works is the everyone involved needs to be able to speak freely about what happened and the processes used so that the AAIB can put together something to try to avoid a repetition

It's a different process to other matters where you try to apportion blame, everyone's keeping quiet to avoid risk of prosecution and the issue occurs again and again and other people are similarly prosecuted as it gives a good feeling.

[5150]

sugerbear said:

When a pilot takes part in one of these events what should the protocal be?

Do the organizers have to tell the pilot what the settings for the plan should be (thrust, height) for their display or is it a case of "fly over there, do some tricks Brian and land here when you are finished" Do the pilots have responsibility to know and plan all that stuff?

Absolutely. All display pilots require a DA from the CAA - Display Authorisation. Amongst other things - it checks the pilot's competency at aerobatics to a particular level.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP403_E13_%20...

CAP403 is a publication from the CAA which explains this in a lot more detail (should answer your question!)

[williamp]

bhstewie said:

I'd assume the AAIB are pretty thorough and have access to all the evidence and information vs. what's been made public?

I'd also assume that had the chap been in a lorry and misjudged a turn and ploughed into a crowd full of people that the Police would be involved as some kind of view would need to be taken on whether the standard of driving fell below that expected of a competent driver.

I don't know if he should be charged or not, that's for the CPS to decide, but I'm mystified by this rose-spectacled view of some posters that because it's an aircrash the only outcome should be that "lessons must be learned"

Not in Glasgow at Chistmas eve, even if the drivrer hid medical conditions from employer

[pushthebutton]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You'll get more insight here:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/591713-aaib-inv...

General gist is there's a lot more to it when one has 'bothered' to read the whole report (450 pages) and not just the summary. This isn't aimed anywhere in particular but, it's probably worth reading and understanding before commenting objectively.

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The problem is that the manoeuvre in question starts with a climb, so the difference between climbing to 500 feet before starting it and starting from below 500 feet is pretty subtle. The additional feet would have meant levelling out no higher than 315 feet, still pretty low, implying this wasn't the only factor.