Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
Is it worth pearoasting this
yellowjack said:
Perhaps let us just remind ourselves of the facts, as far as the AAIB could ascertain them...
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...
...which has this explanatory animation embedded in it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u20-oh5Wblw
From what I read in that report, there are a whole load more people, in addition to the pilot, who bear some responsibility for this crash. On the part of the owner operator of the aeroplane - Out of use preservation of the engine not carried out properly. Aircraft operated outside of it's safety certification (mandatory requirements of its Airworthiness Approval Note had not been met). Air display organisers and regulatory authorities couldn't agree on who "owned" the risks. Then add in the fact that "The aircraft operator’s pilots believed the organiser had gained approval for overflight of congested areas, which was otherwise prohibited for that aircraft, and the display organiser believed that it was the responsibility of the operator or the pilot to fly the aircraft’s display in a manner appropriate to the constraints of the display site."
It all sounds like a clusterf
k episode of the shoulda, woulda, coulda show to be fair. I'm a big fan of air displays, and always have been. And I've been known to moan about HSE interference 'taming' air show displays in the past. But the more of the actual reports I read (and not the emotionally charged media coverage and drivel from armchair experts on the wider internet), the more concerned I am that proper management of risks isn't being carried out for these shows. Damn it, I want air shows to continue, even if I'm ever so slightly bored by them now. But if there isn't a proper pyramid of responsibility on the part of the organisers/regulators to ensure that someone has oversight of ALL the various contributory risks and the management thereof, then these things can't be allowed to happen.
Farnborough is an example. The show happens over a densely populated borough, and ever increasing housing development adds more and more "urban" landscape and takes away open spaces. Statistically then, any incident at Farnborough becomes more likely to occur over populated zones than before. The ETPS and RAE took their flying away from Farnborough to Boscombe Down. Previously quite remote, that now suffers similar development on it's doorstep. Yet despite the increasing urbanisation of Rushmoor Borough, the Farnborough Air Show site is being re-built with permanent display hall facilities. I dread the day an A400M fails to attain enough height at the top of a "dynamic manoeuvre" and either departs from controlled flight or suffers a "controlled flight into terrain".
Andy Hill is in the dock for this one. Perhaps rightly so. But imho he definitely should NOT be alone in that dock. There are plenty of people involved in the planning and execution of that display who ought to hang their heads in shame and consider themselves to be exceedingly fortunate to not have charges to face themselves.
No one is going to come out of this one smelling of roses...
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...
...which has this explanatory animation embedded in it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u20-oh5Wblw
From what I read in that report, there are a whole load more people, in addition to the pilot, who bear some responsibility for this crash. On the part of the owner operator of the aeroplane - Out of use preservation of the engine not carried out properly. Aircraft operated outside of it's safety certification (mandatory requirements of its Airworthiness Approval Note had not been met). Air display organisers and regulatory authorities couldn't agree on who "owned" the risks. Then add in the fact that "The aircraft operator’s pilots believed the organiser had gained approval for overflight of congested areas, which was otherwise prohibited for that aircraft, and the display organiser believed that it was the responsibility of the operator or the pilot to fly the aircraft’s display in a manner appropriate to the constraints of the display site."
It all sounds like a clusterf
k episode of the shoulda, woulda, coulda show to be fair. I'm a big fan of air displays, and always have been. And I've been known to moan about HSE interference 'taming' air show displays in the past. But the more of the actual reports I read (and not the emotionally charged media coverage and drivel from armchair experts on the wider internet), the more concerned I am that proper management of risks isn't being carried out for these shows. Damn it, I want air shows to continue, even if I'm ever so slightly bored by them now. But if there isn't a proper pyramid of responsibility on the part of the organisers/regulators to ensure that someone has oversight of ALL the various contributory risks and the management thereof, then these things can't be allowed to happen.Farnborough is an example. The show happens over a densely populated borough, and ever increasing housing development adds more and more "urban" landscape and takes away open spaces. Statistically then, any incident at Farnborough becomes more likely to occur over populated zones than before. The ETPS and RAE took their flying away from Farnborough to Boscombe Down. Previously quite remote, that now suffers similar development on it's doorstep. Yet despite the increasing urbanisation of Rushmoor Borough, the Farnborough Air Show site is being re-built with permanent display hall facilities. I dread the day an A400M fails to attain enough height at the top of a "dynamic manoeuvre" and either departs from controlled flight or suffers a "controlled flight into terrain".
Andy Hill is in the dock for this one. Perhaps rightly so. But imho he definitely should NOT be alone in that dock. There are plenty of people involved in the planning and execution of that display who ought to hang their heads in shame and consider themselves to be exceedingly fortunate to not have charges to face themselves.
No one is going to come out of this one smelling of roses...
I think there's an issue here with you needing to simplify a complex scenario in order to facilitate your understanding.
There's so much more in the report. I really suggest you read it as the level of understanding demonstrated by your posts suggests that you haven't.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Here's a quote from the AAIB's report on Shoreham:United Kingdom Civil Air Display 1996 Review said:
Pilots whose DA included an aerobatic approval were cleared to perform aerobatic manoeuvres to a specified base height. The DA might also include a fly-by height lower than the aerobatic manoeuvre base height. It was noted that it had become common practice for pilots to use their fly-by height in the middle of an aerobatic
sequence, provided they had completed the aerobatic manoeuvre by the specified base height. There was some concern that such an interpretation could lead to subsequent aerobatic manoeuvres being commenced from the wrong datum.
It seems possible that some (I don't know how many) display pilots may have misunderstood the intention of the rule. Of course, that review was back in 1996 and the recommendation from the AAIB after the Shoreham crash was:sequence, provided they had completed the aerobatic manoeuvre by the specified base height. There was some concern that such an interpretation could lead to subsequent aerobatic manoeuvres being commenced from the wrong datum.
AAIB investigation said:
S1/2016 following the accident to G-BXFI:
Safety Recommendation 2016-036
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority remove the general exemptions to flight at minimum heights issued for Flying Displays, Air Races and Contests outlined in Official Record Series 4-1124 and specify the boundaries of a flying display within which any Permission applies.
That leads to the obvious question: was it a deliberate breach of the rules or a misunderstanding of their intent which had been allowed to continue since 1996? Did other pilot's with a DA also have the same mistaken belief as AH? That was certainly the case in 1996 and the rule hadn't been clarified by the date of the Shoreham Airshow in 2015. Here's Andy Hill's explanation via the AAIB:Safety Recommendation 2016-036
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority remove the general exemptions to flight at minimum heights issued for Flying Displays, Air Races and Contests outlined in Official Record Series 4-1124 and specify the boundaries of a flying display within which any Permission applies.
Andy Hill said:
...that he required a minimum height of 3,500 ft at the apex of the manoeuvre to ensure that he completed it 500 ft or more above the
ground (as required by his display authorisation)
'Fairly obvious intentional breach', as you say, or a misunderstanding that has been allowed to continue since 1996 and may well have not only applied to AH?ground (as required by his display authorisation)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Mentioning it 'several times' doesn't make it fact.anonymous said:
[redacted]
The '500ft thing' is more likely related to the Standardised European Rules of the Air which prevent an aircraft from flying 'at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water'. Prior to the standardisation(?!?), the UK had the very same rule, colloquially known as the 500ft Rule. There are no inbuilt safety factors to this rule that apply to classic display flying any more than they apply to flying a Cessna 152 cross country. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Granted, this is an isolated forum, but you seem overly fixated on the 'floor' when many others, including the AAIB, seem more concerned with the ceiling i.e the apex of the Bent Loop. In fact, they don't even mention the 'floor':AAIB Investigation Findings said:
Causal factors
• The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height.
No mention of a 'floor'.• The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Agreedanonymous said:
[redacted]
DisagreeThere's so much more in the report. I really suggest you read it as the level of understanding demonstrated by your posts suggests that you haven't.
Edited by pushthebutton on Thursday 31st January 20:33
pushthebutton said:
I
The '500ft thing' is more likely related to the Standardised European Rules of the Air which prevent an aircraft from flying 'at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water'. Prior to the standardisation(?!?), the UK had the very same rule, colloquially known as the 500ft Rule.
As far as I know, the UK rule was 'not within 500ft of any person vehicle vessel or structure' so 200ft or even 2ft was perfectly legal in certain circumstances.The '500ft thing' is more likely related to the Standardised European Rules of the Air which prevent an aircraft from flying 'at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water'. Prior to the standardisation(?!?), the UK had the very same rule, colloquially known as the 500ft Rule.
You're right,
I rushed the post and cut the quote short as I was more focused on trying to fit a whole load of food into my mouth at the same time. I wanted to make the point that the Europeans didn't create the rule and that something very similar existed for a long time before the 'standardisation'.
I rushed the post and cut the quote short as I was more focused on trying to fit a whole load of food into my mouth at the same time. I wanted to make the point that the Europeans didn't create the rule and that something very similar existed for a long time before the 'standardisation'.
Edited by pushthebutton on Thursday 31st January 20:39
What’s the issue with the 500’ rule? Did the pilot break the old rule 5 before commencing the manoeuvre or are people talking about breaking it just before the crash? Obviously every crash results in the 500’ rule being broken at some point.
The root cause was obviously the height reached at the top of the manoeuvre. Isn’t that the issue?
The root cause was obviously the height reached at the top of the manoeuvre. Isn’t that the issue?
El stovey said:
Sorry I missed that, what was the case? I thought he wasn’t high enough at the apex? Apologies.
The cause was the ultimate reason he wasn't high enough at that point.Why did he hit the ground? Too low at the bottom of the loop.
Why was he too low at the bottom of the loop? Too low at the top.
Why was he too low at the top? Too low and slow at the start of the loop. Possibly other reasons as well
Why was he too low and slow at the start? and so on and so on
Dr Jekyll said:
El stovey said:
Sorry I missed that, what was the case? I thought he wasn’t high enough at the apex? Apologies.
The cause was the ultimate reason he wasn't high enough at that point.Why did he hit the ground? Too low at the bottom of the loop.
Why was he too low at the bottom of the loop? Too low at the top.
Why was he too low at the top? Too low and slow at the start of the loop. Possibly other reasons as well
Why was he too low and slow at the start? and so on and so on
Isn’t that what normally happens, you start at the correct speed and height (which he didn’t do) climb using enough power and get to the top of the loop and check the speed and height and if it’s not enough then disbandon the manoeuvre regardless of what’s gone on before, that’s your last big gate to sort it out? I’ve not done much aerobatics but isn’t that what you’d do?
Obviously there may be loads of contributing factors that led the guy not being high enough at the top like speed and height at the bottom and power settings in the climb training and regency and mindset and culture within the operation and possible medical and physical issues etc etc
El stovey said:
Dr Jekyll said:
El stovey said:
Sorry I missed that, what was the case? I thought he wasn’t high enough at the apex? Apologies.
The cause was the ultimate reason he wasn't high enough at that point.Why did he hit the ground? Too low at the bottom of the loop.
Why was he too low at the bottom of the loop? Too low at the top.
Why was he too low at the top? Too low and slow at the start of the loop. Possibly other reasons as well
Why was he too low and slow at the start? and so on and so on
Isn’t that what normally happens, you start at the correct speed and height (which he didn’t do) climb using enough power and get to the top of the loop and check the speed and height and if it’s not enough then disbandon the manoeuvre regardless of what’s gone on before, that’s your last big gate to sort it out? I’ve not done much aerobatics but isn’t that what you’d do?
Obviously there may be loads of contributing factors that led the guy not being high enough at the top like speed and height at the bottom and power settings in the climb training and regency and mindset and culture within the operation and possible medical and physical issues etc etc
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff