Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
From a legal point of view the first question might be "did the level of skill and competence fall below the required standard?".
But that's not easy to answer, even the AAIB suggest a number credible reasons why certain information or actions may be outside the immediate consideration of the pilot.
I doubt there's an outcome that would please anyone really.
But that's not easy to answer, even the AAIB suggest a number credible reasons why certain information or actions may be outside the immediate consideration of the pilot.
I doubt there's an outcome that would please anyone really.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think that's just how you read it 
Of course individuals can be accountable, so if the guy had deliberately given the short screws knowing the plane would crash he'd be culpable.
Similarly for the guy fitting the screws
Apparently the guy giving the screws thought the fitting guy would say if they were no good and the guy fitting them assumed the stores guy had given him ones that were suitable
What should the procedure be in future now that we know?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You seem to be getting tied in knots about whether the pilot should be held responsible, when most posters on here who actually work in the industry have been saying all along if there is evidence of deliberate rule breaking the pilot will be held accountable. Whether there is enough evidence of this, is another matter.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Now youre blaming me for something I hadn't said, but you inferred the opposite... 
Maybe we should adjust the forum posting rules to counter in advance what cmoose might be thinking
I'm not sure which part you're concerned about height
I haven't read the whole report but from previous wasn't he ok travelling to the manoeuvre at that height (if you mean the 178ft and assuming the altimeter was showing that)
The manoeuvre itself apparently didnt go high enough for whatever reason in that type of plane, which is why he came out of it lower than he'd have wanted and without enough power to deal with it properly - as far as we can tell.
Is that about right? - someone adjust that if necessary
ETA From the summary
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...
AAIB said:
The aircraft was carrying out a manoeuvre involving both a pitching and rolling component, which commenced from a height lower than the pilot’s authorised minimum for aerobatics, at an airspeed below his stated minimum, and proceeded with less than maximum thrust. This resulted in the aircraft achieving a height at the top of the manoeuvre less than the minimum required to complete it safely, at a speed that was slower than normal.
AAIB said:
The investigation found that the guidance concerning the minimum height at which aerobatic manoeuvres may be commenced is not applied consistently and may be unclear.
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 4th March 13:17
mcdjl said:
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.
So why its approach stop working this time? Luck? The AAIB report reads more like an approach that never worked in the first place.saaby93 said:
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 
Evidently there was no idea to ensure it happened safely though.Everyone involved (regulator, air display organiser, operator, pilot) comes across as amateurish and well below the standard a reasonable person would expect.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, if the AAIB believed that low flying was a contributory cause to the accident then I would expect them to have said that in previous displays the pilot had flown at a low height. As I said they mentioned the fact that in previous displays he had had loose items in the cockpit as they were seen on the video. So if he had history of low flying I would expect them to have said that on x and y occasions he was seen to do the move and emerge at less than 500 ft, but they didn't. I believe that had they believed he ragularly flew low it would have featured as one of the possibilities they give for him being too low.They do mention that they have had a number of other pilots admitting to having missed the peak height they were aiming for but carry on with the display just like the pilot at Shoreham did, but they dont say he was one of them.
ninja-lewis said:
saaby93 said:
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
Evidently there was no idea to ensure it happened safely though.Everyone involved (regulator, air display organiser, operator, pilot) comes across as amateurish and well below the standard a reasonable person would expect.
Trouble is it takes an accident like this to make someone review what's been happening. Hindsight is wonderful.
Arent some or many of them amateurs putting on this type of thing? Doesnt mean they dont want to do it right
saaby93 said:
ninja-lewis said:
saaby93 said:
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
Evidently there was no idea to ensure it happened safely though.Everyone involved (regulator, air display organiser, operator, pilot) comes across as amateurish and well below the standard a reasonable person would expect.
Trouble is it takes an accident like this to make someone review what's been happening. Hindsight is wonderful.
Arent some or many of them amateurs putting on this type of thing? Doesnt mean they dont want to do it right
Chrisgr31 said:
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.
I've read the full report now, very comprehensive as you would expect after all the time to do it.
Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff.
Still lovely to see and hear.
Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff.
Still lovely to see and hear.Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 5th April 01:21
Gandahar said:
I've read the full report now, very comprehensive as you would expect after all the time to do it.
Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff. Still lovely to see and hear.
I disagree entirely with your last statement. (You may want to dig into the red arrows from a couple of years ago if you think they can do engineering any better) I know an acrobatic pilot who's hours far exceed a military display pilots time at the stick. Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff.
Still lovely to see and hear.Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 5th April 01:21
With the correct management and regulation there should be no reason why historic and jet aircraft cannot display an aerobatic routine.
Gandahar said:
I've read the full report now, very comprehensive as you would expect after all the time to do it.
Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff. Still lovely to see and hear.
I think that will sum up the views of many, certainly the general public.Summary of crash
Entered too low into the maneuver, going too slow, did not apply full power going into the vertical, did not do an escape roll out, put too much roll on so was aligned along the A27, descended and entered a stall regime and pancaked the plane.
However after reading the report a few extra items of thought. The recommended speed was 350 knots, and he was about 300 or so; but the report says you could do the loop at 300, depending on other factors such as thrust and the tightness of the loop to gain altitude over the speed at the top of the loop. The report also says the minimum height for an acrobatic maneuver is 500 ft, however between those you can go lower, like in a fly past. The distinction is not really written in stone. It seems that aircraft in these displays at Shoreham have been going too low and also over populated areas without any redress. Indeed, this very aircraft did the year before from video analysis.
So it was all very "as you do" at Shoreham and they got away with it.
The people who looked after the plane sort of did "as you do" as well. The engine had not really been looked after as it would in the military. Due to how it was used it sat for periods before doing displays so parts had started to decay. Did it have an impact on the power up after the start of the loop? Inconclusive says the report, but who knows. The ejection seat was another area past its sell by date and not properly maintained.
In summary we have the following issues
1. Old enthusiastic pilots with few hours on type compared to the heyday of these planes
2. Old, and getting older, planes with less replacement parts.
3. Environments which are not suited for the above if things go wrong due to limitation in space.
That's a rather sad summary though if you like watching planes. I'd be happy just watching fly pasts though, like I do when I see the Spitfire from Biggin Hill a lot of days. He doesn't need to do a loop or shoot down Jerry. Well, maybe the latter just the odd time
Leave the acrobatics up to the Red arrows etc and let the old birds just do simple stuff.
Still lovely to see and hear.Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 5th April 01:21
After Shoreham, and the high number of 'total innocents' killed, I would expect that most of the general public would hope that the older aircraft are no longer allowed to do acrobatics etc.
The age of the aircraft rarely has anything to do with any warbird aircraft crashes. In fact, I can only think of one vintage aircraft crashes that had anything to do with this - and even then that was down to an error in maintenance as much as age.
By far and away the major cause of airshow crashes (of any sort of aircraft) is pilot misjudgement.
By far and away the major cause of airshow crashes (of any sort of aircraft) is pilot misjudgement.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff