Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Apologies, I'm able to sort the objective from the subjective and can quickly filter the knowledgeable from the emotional. If you can only see relatively little exposition of the detail of the report then I can only assume that we're reading a different thread.DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
I'm not sure youve understood the reportAs weve seen previously in this thread invariably the report ends in pilot error, but there will be a sequence of events leading up to the pilot making those errors.
For instance although the report says the plane wasn't high enough at the Apex, it leaves open whether or not the pilot knew this and says the altimeter which was damaged is undergoing further inspection.
AAIB reports don't attribute blame, they try to uncover the sequence of events to try to prevent that sequence happening again.
It would be difficult to send the pilot to jail if the factors leading to the errors and crash were outside his making, so we need to find out more about that.
The inquests should be next
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ha ha. Don't be afraid.Your posts show a clear ignorance surrounding the subject matter, but I was trying to be nice. I have very little bias, but clearly a lot more knowledge than you in this subject. One can never win when arguing with stupid, but if I ever need help within your area of expertise, vocabulary, I'll be sure to convoke you.
Dr Jekyll said:
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.We as humans are all capable of making mistakes, very sadly they can sometimes have fatal and disasterous consequences to self and others.
aeropilot said:
I think the issue here is experience on type, relative to each other, he only had some 40 odd hours on the Hunter, but over 900 hours on the JP (including being a QFI on the JP in RAF service) so you could easily see how his mind is going to be more auto-programmed for the JP....only takes a split second to make that 'wrong' decision!!
We as humans are all capable of making mistakes, very sadly they can sometimes have fatal and disasterous consequences to self and others.
I think many people were surprised at the lack of recent hours on type before the accident. Perhaps that is something that will be looked at or changed in the fallout of all this.We as humans are all capable of making mistakes, very sadly they can sometimes have fatal and disasterous consequences to self and others.
saaby93 said:
ot 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.
Except in this case it has been pretty well known that Sussex Police are looking for information to consider a prosecution and therefore it wouldnt surprise me if some people have been less open than they might have been otherwiseIt'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.
aeropilot said:
Too low, too slow, not enough power on the way up and not realising it was all going Pete Tong.....in a Hunter, that's pretty much all happening within a few seconds to the point of no return....
In the first couple of pages of this thread there was a quote from a pilot who'd come out of such a manoeuvre and realised the fields were much bigger than they should have been.When we saw one of those first videos the plane was 'flying' over the trees with what looked like not enough height, not enough power and any attempt to get more height with not enough speed was going to risk a pancake which it did
We now have the report with the 'hows', still not sure we know the 'whys'
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Very possiblyanonymous said:
[redacted]
Everything thought you're processing in a swept wing jet at 300kts at low level for a display is a split second decision.The question would be why did he make so many in such a short space of time, rather than focusing on just one of them.
We'll probably never know.
He's not the first pilot to make such a sequence of mistakes, and he'll likely not be the last.
Chrisgr31 said:
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
I assume that you have some vested interest in this?DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Looking at your posts it does seem like you're angry at the CAA/the pilot and organisers. There are a few comments like 'should be organised by the experts' when (arguably) the event was and to the best (then) guidelines. To be cross about the organisation and want better experts (who i'd assume don't exist) to run the event in the future, rather than wanting the current ones to learn and modify procedure to improve things seems 'angry'/agenda driven given the rules they'd been working to seem to have been working until that year.This thread has always had a distasteful undertone towards us "normal public" who are concerned that 11 people died who had nothing to do with an airshow, and have had an "agenda" against airshows. Multiple failings from planning to a failed execution show that this was an unsafe event. People trying to justify this really should take a look in the mirror. I feel so sorry for all the families affected by this tragedy.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
While some of that is fact, its mixed with opinion. While the CAA might appear like an old boys club, but up until that year its approach had been working. As it is the regulator, who do you think should regulate a body widely known as the Campaign Against Aviation? Equally there are a good number of people who did let that man in that aircraft. Would they now? Maybe not. However all aircraft have potential faults, including ones that have faults. Whether those faults are an issue is another matter. Undoubtedly things went wrong, were done badly and could be done better.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff