Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Chrisgr31]

BrabusMog said:

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.

In my opinion the "normal public" have no particular interest in this event, they do of course have sympathy for the families affected by this this accident but certainly are not desperate to play a blame game.

It appears from reading the full report that nothing particularly out of the ordinary affected this event other than the pilot commencing the move too slow and reaching insufficient height which ultimately caused the accident. The reality appears to be that had the accident not occurred the fact he was too slow and low would not have been recorded nor acted on.

It is clear from reading the report that actions should have been taken prior to this accident to tighten up the rules surrounding air shows, and air displays and it is if course unfortunate that it took this accident and the deaths of members of the public to identify this. However ultimately it is very easy to be wise after the event.

I don't believe the "normal public" are as concerned about this event as some in this forum might imply. To me it seems that most people accept that the accident happened, it was an accident and a culmination of a number of events and they are happy as long as lessons are learnt from those events, which obviously they have been.

I would consider myself to be a normal member of the public, I don't fly a plane, I don't organise air shows, I irregularly attend airshows (3 in last 12 years all at Eastbourne) I accept that accidents happen and that we need to learn from them. I believe that we have learnt from this incident and I fail to see the benefit in taking matters further as there appears to be no more to be learnt.

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The pilot was authorised to go down to 200ft, the 500ft floor was for aerobatics. That's why it's relevant that even if he had started the climb at 500 feet he would all other things being equal have finished it at 315 feet or less.

The nearest similar accident to this as I've said before is the 2003 Thunderbirds crash of an F16. Both pilots went from inverted into what was in effect the second half of a loop, ran out of height and slid along the ground. The video of the F16 crash is on YouTube and apart from the fact that the impact was on the airfield it is uncannily similar to the Hunter crash.
That pilot had practised the manoeuver at his home base extensively, then in the display he climbed to the same height he was used to forgetting that this airfield was much higher above sea level. That pilot was not merely a full time experienced military pilot but a full time display pilot.

There are also plenty of cases of experienced full time pilots doing things like forgetting the lower the undercarriage, shutting down the wrong engine after a failure, landing at the wrong airport etc. Having plenty of recent practice is certainly good for improving the precision of someone's flying but when it comes to avoiding simple mistakes it shouldn't be overrated.

With the Gnat crash in 2015 I'm inclined to agree pilot currency was probably a factor, 12 hours a year for displaying a swept wing jet is ludicrous. But I'm not so sure about the Shoreham one.

[TTmonkey]

When I go to see an air show I make a few assumptions.

For e pilots doing stunts: The assumption is the pilots are the best. That they know exactly what they are doing. That they follow the rules precisely. That they know everything there is to know about the plane that they are flying. That they are the best of the best. That they totally understand their aircraft and their planned display. That they know what to do when it starts going wrong. That they don't make such basic mistakes. That they know what to do if it goes wrong.

The report basically states that my assumptions are totally wrong.

This is 2015. (When the accident occurred).

Yet it feels like it's 1975. When things were far less regulated.

The pilot says he doesnt remember anything. Well, I don't believe him. Far to convenient for someone whose clearly made many mistakes in the run up to the incident.

I also don't like the hiding. If I had made such terrible mistakes that led to so many deaths, I'd be begging the victims families for forgiveness. Memory or not.

Some say he's been thrown under the bus. Well, with his post accident attitude, best place for him.

[saaby93]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

It reads as though your anger has taken control
The good thing about AAIB reports is they step back from that to try to find out what happened and how to prevent similar in the future
Maybe think of it like Health and Safety regulations where the idea isn't to stop an activity but ensure that the activity is carried out safely.
The AAIB report has uncovered a number of holes in the system where for example one group of people or body thought another body was responsible and vice versa.

It also reads as though you're thinking of justice as retribution - someone should take some pain for what happened. That's verging on scapegoating rather than justice.

None of us can speak for what all the families are thinking but the main thing is that lessons are learned to try to prevent a recurrence.

If the pilots done something deliberately wrong and crashed that's one thing, and we know recently where terrorists have tried to get hold of planes to do same.

This was a 75th Battle of Britain Commemoration. The idea was to put some planes in the sky for everyone who wanted to see. As far as I can tell the intention wasn't to spoil the day and crash one of them, let alone injure or kill anyone

Let's follow the process through.

[bitchstewie]

saaby93 said:

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.

Which I get, but I'm afraid it does come across strongly from some as "Nothing to see here, just learn from it so we get to keep our airshows" so far as the pilot is concerned.

There's a point where it switches from being a cock-up to being negligent and at that point it goes beyond "lessons learned" just the same as if they'd found a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels in the wreckage.

[saaby93]

bhstewie said:

There's a point where it switches from being a cock-up to being negligent and at that point it goes beyond "lessons learned" just the same as if they'd found a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels in the wreckage.

Of course, but even there, there's a line
In one of those flight safety programmes where they went through everything to find out why a cockpit window had come adrift and a plane not sure if it crashed or came close to crashing.
It turned out that during maintenance the guy in stores had given out the nearest set of screws they had in stock to the ones actually required - about 5mm shorter.
He knew what he'd done at the time but hadn't realised the consequences.
To find that out you have to get everyone to speak freely which he did, and procedures tightened up.
What's the penalty to prevent in future people speaking freely rather than covering their backs, and procedures being left the same and same thing happens again?

That's the difference with aircraft safety and investigations.

Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 4th March 08:56

[mcdjl]

TTmonkey said:

The pilot says he doesnt remember anything. Well, I don't believe him. Far to convenient for someone whose clearly made many mistakes in the run up to the incident.

I also don't like the hiding. If I had made such terrible mistakes that led to so many deaths, I'd be begging the victims families for forgiveness. Memory or not.

Some say he's been thrown under the bus. Well, with his post accident attitude, best place for him.

You are aware it's not uncommon for people to suffer memory loss after a traumatic event? Regardless of the fault which he carries the pilot didn't get off lightly.
What has his attitude been? I've seen nothing reported beyond he was cooperating/ police were waiting to interview him.

[Richie Slow]

I think the questions now will be to determine whether the level of skill and competence fell below the required standard.

I wouldn't want to be called for jury service on that one!!

[RichB]

Dr Jekyll said:

...That pilot had practised the manoeuver at his home base extensively, then in the display he climbed to the same height he was used to forgetting that this airfield was much higher above sea level. That pilot was not merely a full time experienced military pilot but a full time display pilot...

Surely one would set one's altimeter to airfield elevation (QFE) before commencing any aerobatics? Nothing else makes sense.

[bitchstewie]

saaby93 said:

That's the difference with aircraft safety and investigations.

Why is it, and why should it be different though?

Do you think if someone had knowingly used the wrong screw in a fairground ride and it fell apart and people died that there wouldn't be some kind of prosecution?

Or take the example of the guy(s) who've just been to jail because their tipper truck went out of control because they skimped on maintenance?

I don't want this to come across as if I'm choosing specific examples, but I am curious what is so special about aviation vs. other industries where fk ups are concerned?

I watch a lot of the Air Crash Investigation type programs and to be really clear I am not one of those advocating punishing mistakes, as one of the survivors said on one such show whilst speaking about the pilot of the airplane he was in that crashed "the guy made a mistake, been there, done that, I don't hold it against him" but there are times when you can't simply call it "a mistake" IMO.

[saaby93]

Richie Slow said:

I think the questions now will be to determine whether the level of skill and competence fell below the required standard.

I wouldn't want to be called for jury service on that one!!

In some ways its a bit like that engines out nearly a crash but managed to land on the river Hudson.
The pilot (and the control systems) managed to pull it off and became a hero
If it had crashed in the river he may well have been called to account for trying to land there rather than somewhere else.

In the long distance video posted near the beginning of this thread you can see the pilots still in the plane with not enough height and not enough speed, just above or in the trees, and for all intents and purposes trying to get that extra couple of inches to avoid disaster. If he'd pulled it off, we wouldn't have this thread.
There may also have been no investigation, but we've seen where a Tornado came very close to the ground at a display, there was. There should be.

[Dr Jekyll]

RichB said:

Dr Jekyll said:

...That pilot had practised the manoeuver at his home base extensively, then in the display he climbed to the same height he was used to forgetting that this airfield was much higher above sea level. That pilot was not merely a full time experienced military pilot but a full time display pilot...

Surely one would set one's altimeter to airfield elevation (QFE) before commencing any aerobatics? Nothing else makes sense.

No, their practice at the time was to use QNH. It may have changed since.

[Richie Slow]

saaby93 said:

Richie Slow said:

I think the questions now will be to determine whether the level of skill and competence fell below the required standard.

I wouldn't want to be called for jury service on that one!!

In some ways its a bit like that engines out nearly a crash but managed to land on the river Hudson.
The pilot (and the control systems) managed to pull it off and became a hero
If it had crashed in the river he may well have been called to account for trying to land there rather than somewhere else.

In the long distance video posted near the beginning of this thread you can see the pilots still in the plane with not enough height and not enough speed, just above or in the trees, and for all intents and purposes trying to get that extra couple of inches to avoid disaster. If he'd pulled it off, we wouldn't have this thread.
There may also have been no investigation, but we've seen where a Tornado came very close to the ground at a display, there was. There should be.

I agree that we mustn't be excessively focussed on outcome with these considerations. There were no tragic consequences at Southport but the incident might now be considered by some to be the pre-cursor to what later unfolded. Maybe that was an opportunity missed.

BTW, I'm not interested in perpetuating an argument, there's been to much of that. Just looking at things from different angles.

[Eric Mc]

saaby93 said:

There may also have been no investigation, but we've seen where a Tornado came very close to the ground at a display, there was. There should be.

Are you referring to the RAF Typhoon incident?

[saaby93]

bhstewie said:

saaby93 said:

That's the difference with aircraft safety and investigations.

Why is it, and why should it be different though?

It's because it's based on prevention.
If a mistake occurs the results of a plane crash can be so mush more devastating.
The RAIB now look to be using the same procedures for the railways so as to prevent same happening again rather than looking to punish someone and saying job done.
Which doesn't mean to say that someone can't be punished it's just the shift is towards prevention
It would be easy to say for instance, we don't want any incidents on the railways let's not have a railway, or in this case let's not have airshows.
But HSE etc take the other view - how do we have them but run them safely.

Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 4th March 09:28

[saaby93]

Eric Mc said:

saaby93 said:

There may also have been no investigation, but we've seen where a Tornado came very close to the ground at a display, there was. There should be.

Are you referring to the RAF Typhoon incident?

Yes sorry Typhoon if I have it right

[Speed 3]

bhstewie said:

saaby93 said:

That's the difference with aircraft safety and investigations.

Why is it, and why should it be different though?

Do you think if someone had knowingly used the wrong screw in a fairground ride and it fell apart and people died that there wouldn't be some kind of prosecution?

Or take the example of the guy(s) who've just been to jail because their tipper truck went out of control because they skimped on maintenance?

I don't want this to come across as if I'm choosing specific examples, but I am curious what is so special about aviation vs. other industries where fk ups are concerned?

I watch a lot of the Air Crash Investigation type programs and to be really clear I am not one of those advocating punishing mistakes, as one of the survivors said on one such show whilst speaking about the pilot of the airplane he was in that crashed "the guy made a mistake, been there, done that, I don't hold it against him" but there are times when you can't simply call it "a mistake" IMO.

What aviation has chosen to embrace to improve its overall safety record is a Just Culture. That is not the same as a "no-blame" culture which many not in that (or similar eg nuclear) industry commonly perceive. The whole point of a Just culture is to actively encourage reporting of incidents / near misses / mistakes to establish a method to prevent re-occurrence. The facts on aviation safety improvement over the last 50 years stand for themselves in support of this policy. If you were to reverse it now, you would immediately shut that reporting channel down through fear of retribution. What a Just Culture does not exclude is "wilful misconduct" ie if it is established by the AAIB that one or more persons knowingly did something wrong then the full force of the law comes into play. It will be up to the CPS to decide if that was the case from the facts presented to them by the AAIB. It was very similar in the Clutha helicopter case in Glasgow, had the pilot knowingly run low on fuel or were the aircraft systems letting him down ? At Shoreham if the engine had been the primary cause the maintenace deviations would definitely have resulted in prosecutions. For the actual cause the CPS have to decide if he knowingly flew too low/slow which I suspect will be very difficult no matter what he actually did. All the other issues fall under the improve/prevent category.

[RichB]

Dr Jekyll said:

RichB said:

Dr Jekyll said:

...That pilot had practised the manoeuver at his home base extensively, then in the display he climbed to the same height he was used to forgetting that this airfield was much higher above sea level. That pilot was not merely a full time experienced military pilot but a full time display pilot...

Surely one would set one's altimeter to airfield elevation (QFE) before commencing any aerobatics? Nothing else makes sense.

No, their practice at the time was to use QNH. It may have changed since.

Tnx. Seems odd but I guess there's a reason.

[eccles]

Speed 3 said:

What aviation has chosen to embrace to improve its overall safety record is a Just Culture. That is not the same as a "no-blame" culture which many not in that (or similar eg nuclear) industry commonly perceive. The whole point of a Just culture is to actively encourage reporting of incidents / near misses / mistakes to establish a method to prevent re-occurrence. The facts on aviation safety improvement over the last 50 years stand for themselves in support of this policy. If you were to reverse it now, you would immediately shut that reporting channel down through fear of retribution. What a Just Culture does not exclude is "wilful misconduct" ie if it is established by the AAIB that one or more persons knowingly did something wrong then the full force of the law comes into play. It will be up to the CPS to decide if that was the case from the facts presented to them by the AAIB. It was very similar in the Clutha helicopter case in Glasgow, had the pilot knowingly run low on fuel or were the aircraft systems letting him down ? At Shoreham if the engine had been the primary cause the maintenace deviations would definitely have resulted in prosecutions. For the actual cause the CPS have to decide if he knowingly flew too low/slow which I suspect will be very difficult no matter what he actually did. All the other issues fall under the improve/prevent category.

As has been seen by the last few pages of posts on this thread, the whole Human factors/Just culture ethos of the aviation industry looks a bit of a cop out to outsiders, but in reality, brings in much safer systems of work and prevents further incidents.
This whole Shoreham crash incident has brought this system into the public eye where some seem to find it protectionist or an attempt to to dodge blame, but in reality is just an attempt to stop something similar happening again. If anyone during the process has been deemed to have deliberately flouted regulations, then it would be quite normal for them to be punished/prosecuted.

[TTmonkey]

mcdjl said:

TTmonkey said:

The pilot says he doesnt remember anything. Well, I don't believe him. Far to convenient for someone whose clearly made many mistakes in the run up to the incident.

I also don't like the hiding. If I had made such terrible mistakes that led to so many deaths, I'd be begging the victims families for forgiveness. Memory or not.

Some say he's been thrown under the bus. Well, with his post accident attitude, best place for him.

You are aware it's not uncommon for people to suffer memory loss after a traumatic event? Regardless of the fault which he carries the pilot didn't get off lightly.
What has his attitude been? I've seen nothing reported beyond he was cooperating/ police were waiting to interview him.

Yes I'm perfectly aware that many people block out memories after a Traumatic event. I'm also aware that many many people claim this in order to avoid the truth and consequences.

Yesterday the report found the pilot at fault. Memory or not, I'd be both publicly and privately apologising and begging for understanding and forgiveness. But I'm sure he's received much legal advice and he's adhering to it.