Crash at Shoreham Air show

[5150]

saaby93 said:

95% complete
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/20/shoreha...

25000 documents

How many parts make up the plane?

Welcome to aviation . . .

[Yertis]

SpamCan said:

Many thousands, each one (including rivets or rather a batch of them) have their own paper trail. Its one of the reasons why aircraft are so expensive, the actual design and build work (in man hours) is in many cases far less than the man hours spent verifying the component is fit for purpose.

I remember my Dad grumbling about the amount of paperwork surrounding one particular component he worked on, which was used to secure the toilet roll holder to the bulkhead (or whatever) in a Bristol Britannia. It was basically a block of aluminium with two holes in, but had the same paper trail attached to it as flight control components.

[Dr Jekyll]

Civilian Hunters no longer grounded.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?...

'...no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident..."

[ecsrobin]

Yertis said:

I remember my Dad grumbling about the amount of paperwork surrounding one particular component he worked on, which was used to secure the toilet roll holder to the bulkhead (or whatever) in a Bristol Britannia. It was basically a block of aluminium with two holes in, but had the same paper trail attached to it as flight control components.

The Britten Norman islander uses a part off a landrover. However because it is now fitted in an aircraft it needs testing, certifying and everything that goes along with that. To buy the part for your landrover is about £5 for an aircraft it’s closer to £200 IIRC.

[saaby93]

Dr Jekyll said:

Civilian Hunters no longer grounded.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?...

'...no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident..."

CAA said:

Title:Hawker Hunter Series Aeroplanes on UK Civil Register

Description:On 6 July 2017 the CAA withdrew the Safety Directive which grounded all Hawker Hunter aircraft on the UK register. This Safety Directive was introduced in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Shoreham airshow accident as a precautionary and unprecedented measure.

This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident. This is based on our own extensive review and the AAIB’s final accident report.

All aircraft of this type will have to comply with enhanced maintenance and inspection requirements and, following normal practice, secure all relevant permits and other approvals before they are allowed to fly again.

The restriction on aerobatic manoeuvres by ex-military jet aircraft, now including the Hawker Hunter, at overland airshows remains in place. This means that they continue to be restricted to flypasts and associated manoeuvres only.

Status:Cancelled on 6 July 2017
Date:25 August 2015

Odd way of dating a report - is all the above cancelled?

[Dr Jekyll]

saaby93 said:

Odd way of dating a report - is all the above cancelled?

The grounding is lifted, 'cancelled' in CAA terminology(!?).

The aerobatic restrictions on ex military jets that came in when the Hunters were grounded still apply. The extra maintenance requirements are part of the lifting of the grounding.

[ecsrobin]

saaby93 said:

Odd way of dating a report - is all the above cancelled?

Not odd, or at least in aviation. The initial grounding report was published in 2015 this is now the amendment to that document which is why it includes the original date.

It’s in case there was multiple reports on the Hunter you could cross repeference it by the date it’s published to know which report it references.

[saaby93]

So it's not really cancelled it's amended - half of it remains in place?

[Dr Jekyll]

saaby93 said:

So it's not really cancelled it's amended - half of it remains in place?

No, the grounding doesn't remain in place. Hunters are no longer grounded. Separate restrictions relating to ex military jets in general, and that came in at the same time, remain in place.

[ecsrobin]

saaby93 said:

So it's not really cancelled it's amended - half of it remains in place?

Amended/superseded/cancelled insert as required.

[saaby93]

ecsrobin said:

saaby93 said:

So it's not really cancelled it's amended - half of it remains in place?

Amended/superseded/cancelled insert as required.

That was my point

[ecsrobin]

saaby93 said:

ecsrobin said:

saaby93 said:

So it's not really cancelled it's amended - half of it remains in place?

Amended/superseded/cancelled insert as required.

That was my point

[RoverP6B]

And still no evidence that the Hunter itself was to blame. Little indication of pilot negligence either. The major unanswered question remains the functionality of the Avon's control unit. AAIB glossed over that.

[mybrainhurts]

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

What do you reckon, bring back flogging?

[hornetrider]

RoverP6B said:

Little indication of pilot negligence either.

[Simpo Two]

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

Well, if your idea of 'justice' is simply to stick him in jail for life, we could have just done that to start with, saved the country god-knows-how-many-millions not to mentions man-hours, and then the families would be relaxing in non-limbo justice-land. Problem solved.

[NDA]

My understanding is that the manoeuvre was started too low? Therefore that's pilot error isn't it?

[Trevatanus]

NDA said:

My understanding is that the manoeuvre was started too low? Therefore that's pilot error isn't it?

True, but he was an experienced pilot, who had flown many hours. We could just say "it was his fault" or we could find out WHY he did what he did, so it does not happen again?

[Eric Mc]

It will happen again.

It's the most common cause of crashes at airshows.

[aeropilot]

Trevatanus said:

NDA said:

My understanding is that the manoeuvre was started too low? Therefore that's pilot error isn't it?

True, but he was an experienced pilot, who had flown many hours. We could just say "it was his fault" or we could find out WHY he did what he did, so it does not happen again?

Too low, and too slow on entry......

And while he was an experienced pilot who had flown many hours, he didn't have many Hunter hours....and not many recent ones, although he satisfied the CAA requirements in this respect at the time....

Whether those CAA requirements were adequate enough was something highlighted in the AAIB report, and it remains to be seen whether that is something that changes, although its highly unlikely that anyone will be contemplating much in the way of vintage jet ops in the UK in the future now.