Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
It’s often about mindset.
People tend to be looking for positive outcomes in these situations. Your mindset is that it will work out. That’s why you have set targets or gates to tell you how you’re actually doing, not how we perceive us to be doing. Often then though there is still a strong tendency for people to ignore this and think they can still make it work,
The thing to try and do is to think it probably won’t work and be thinking what you’ll do constantly when it doesn’t. Being stuck in this mindset of it working often gives people “pushonitis” where they persist with a bad plan. People then become ‘target fixated’ where they filter out the part of their mind saying ‘are you sure this is right?’ And instead concentrate on the one saying ‘I can (still) do this’
Flying is full of events where people have ignored set limits and targets or rules because people are imperfect, sometimes it’s due to not having a good alternative in the back of their mind, sometimes it’s due to biases in how we see situations.
As ever, there are all kinds of things that have to happen for an aircraft (or any other) accident to happen. People and tabloids papers glibly shouting “pilot error” will never properly explain the event and certainly won’t stop it happening again.
People tend to be looking for positive outcomes in these situations. Your mindset is that it will work out. That’s why you have set targets or gates to tell you how you’re actually doing, not how we perceive us to be doing. Often then though there is still a strong tendency for people to ignore this and think they can still make it work,
The thing to try and do is to think it probably won’t work and be thinking what you’ll do constantly when it doesn’t. Being stuck in this mindset of it working often gives people “pushonitis” where they persist with a bad plan. People then become ‘target fixated’ where they filter out the part of their mind saying ‘are you sure this is right?’ And instead concentrate on the one saying ‘I can (still) do this’
Flying is full of events where people have ignored set limits and targets or rules because people are imperfect, sometimes it’s due to not having a good alternative in the back of their mind, sometimes it’s due to biases in how we see situations.
As ever, there are all kinds of things that have to happen for an aircraft (or any other) accident to happen. People and tabloids papers glibly shouting “pilot error” will never properly explain the event and certainly won’t stop it happening again.
Europa1 said:
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
In which case he was badly advised, in my view. We have moved away from "expressing contrition = admission of liability".saaby93 said:
A pilots not going to loop at 2,700 ft of he knows he needs 3,500ft
So why did he only get to 2700ft?
Possibly because he actually didn't have much time in Hunters and was far more familiar with the Jet Provost which, I assume, has different parameters and requirements.So why did he only get to 2700ft?
It's called "Human Factors" - the brain defaults to what it knows best and no amount of training can help that. He possibly flew to the JP parameters and not the Hunters? Display pilots should probably stick to flying one type of aircraft and have many hours in them, and not display other things.
snake_oil said:
What is interesting to me is how is he going to plead. Will he take responsibility? Will he want to put the families of the victims through a trial?
Not sure why we call people in these types of cases victims - or quite a few others when it comes to the newsYou're a victim if someone has set out to deliberately target you.
If youve succumbed due to some sort of accident where no malice was involved, theres little benefit calling it something else
Its not for him to put he families of those whove died through a trial, it's him thats going through a trial and the CPS decides that
Whether he's deemed responsible or not will come out
So far the AAIB report has said a number of errors were made.
If he's made the errors then he's responsible, and it often comes out it's pilot error
The question we need to know to prevent it happening again is why those errors would made
A pilot doesnt usually want to crash a plane especially if its a historic one like this
NDA said:
Perhaps there might be a recommendation that aerobatic manoeuvres shouldn't be performed over major roads in the future?
Possibly - but was the manoeuvre in this case carried out over the road?Early on it looked like it was on the trip back from the manoeuvre that he didnt have enough height or power.
saaby93 said:
So far the AAIB report has said a number of errors were made.
If he's made the errors then he's responsible, and it often comes out it's pilot error
The question we need to know to prevent it happening again is why those errors would made
As I said, its called “Human Factors”. Its a science and should be taken in to account far more.If he's made the errors then he's responsible, and it often comes out it's pilot error
The question we need to know to prevent it happening again is why those errors would made
saaby93 said:
snake_oil said:
What is interesting to me is how is he going to plead. Will he take responsibility? Will he want to put the families of the victims through a trial?
Not sure why we call people in these types of cases victims - or quite a few others when it comes to the newsYou're a victim if someone has set out to deliberately target you.
If youve succumbed due to some sort of accident where no malice was involved, theres little benefit calling it something else.
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
That to me would say in this case, victim is very much the right word.
CAPP0 said:
Saaby, I'm beginning to think that you are in fact Mr Hill.
No, just stating the obvious 
There seem to be some people here who seem to think a trial might be a witch hunt
Theres a difference between a mistake and a deliberate act, and the trial should be able to come to a conclusion on that.
At the moment the AAIB has said what happened, i.e. not enough height or speed at various points in the manoeuvre
I think we knew that within 5 minutes of the crash
It still hasnt come out why.
KrazyIvan said:
saaby93 said:
snake_oil said:
What is interesting to me is how is he going to plead. Will he take responsibility? Will he want to put the families of the victims through a trial?
Not sure why we call people in these types of cases victims - or quite a few others when it comes to the newsYou're a victim if someone has set out to deliberately target you.
If youve succumbed due to some sort of accident where no malice was involved, theres little benefit calling it something else.
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
That to me would say in this case, victim is very much the right word.
Does it help relatives if someone is referred to as a 'victim' if no malice was intended?
saaby93 said:
CAPP0 said:
Saaby, I'm beginning to think that you are in fact Mr Hill.
No, just stating the obvious There seem to be some people here who seem to think a trial might be a witch hunt
Theres a difference between a mistake and a deliberate act, and the trial should be able to come to a conclusion on that.
At the moment the AAIB has said what happened, i.e. not enough height or speed at various points in the manoeuvre
I think we knew that within 5 minutes of the crash
It still hasnt come out why.
I think the key question will be whether it was negligence or bravado.
NDA said:
Perhaps there might be a recommendation that aerobatic manoeuvres shouldn't be performed over major roads in the future?
You'll find that's pretty much already been implemented at venues where there is such an issue. The centre of display axis at Duxford for example was moved much further west away from the M11 throughout all last season, as well as other changes. Other venues (that are still persevering with putting on a display) have made changes as well, some venues will just no longer be practical.
There are now a lot less operational vintage jets left in the UK now, as many have now been sold aboard, or grounded, so again, that's not even going to be an issue going forward.
This is not the first time a pilot has messed up a vertical loop for being too low at gate height and smacked into the ground (RAF F-4 at Abingdon, RR Spitfire at Woodford, TFC P-63 at Biggin etc.,etc), and it likely won't be the last, but it is the first time that it has taken innocent members of the public with it, but hopefully it will also be the only time.
The one factor here that is pretty much also a first is that the pilot by some astonishing quirk of fate has survived their own mistake, so its also a first time that the PIC is in a position to be legally hung out to dry for that mistake.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There is a complication here in that the pilot was allowed to go down to 200ft provided he climbed to 500ft before performing aerobatics, and the aerobatic manoeuvre in question started with a climb. So what height he started it at was debatable. Even if he had entered it 300ft lower than intended that in itself would only cause him to come out 300ft lower, not 500ft lower. Something else would have had to go wrong (EG overestimating his speed due to unusually low altitude).The real issue is why he didn’t abort when far too low at the top.
Dr Jekyll said:
The real issue is why he didn’t abort when far too low at the top.
I think that's where his previous display indiscretions will obviously count against him.......Which then perhaps calls into question the CAA's own system for monitoring/controlling DA's etc., and thus my suspicion will be that the pressure will be on AH to enter a guilty plea......?
TTmonkey said:
What gets me is he's never made a statement. Never stood up and apologised or expressed his regret. I don't recall him expressing his condolences, maybe he did. But it doesn't seem to be public record.
11 men, the majority not even watching the air show, not involved in any way, taken from their families that day. Minding their own business, going places and doing things.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted. 11 men, the majority not even watching the air show, not involved in any way, taken from their families that day. Minding their own business, going places and doing things.
And yet there's still people on here saying it could have been because of this or that!
All the evidence has been looked at, including in cockpit video aparently and this is the decision they've came to, and quiet right too.
pc.iow said:
As all guilty people are told to do.
And yet there's still people on here saying it could have been because of this or that!
All the evidence has been looked at, including in cockpit video aparently and this is the decision they've came to, and quiet right too.
The decision they've come to is that there is a realistic chance of conviction. It's up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence.And yet there's still people on here saying it could have been because of this or that!
All the evidence has been looked at, including in cockpit video aparently and this is the decision they've came to, and quiet right too.
saaby93 said:
Possibly - but was the manoeuvre in this case carried out over the road?
Early on it looked like it was on the trip back from the manoeuvre that he didnt have enough height or power.
What have you seen that suggests that?Early on it looked like it was on the trip back from the manoeuvre that he didnt have enough height or power.
What d'you mean by "the trip back" from the manoeuvre?
He was still engaged in completing (but failing) the loop when he crashed.
This is the post on page 55 about altimeter
Was anything found by the cockpit camera in the end?
In all honesty, yes. The speed at which these aircraft cover distance is such that the wrong density altitude and barometric pressure adjustment on the altimeter would put you far enough out to cause an issue. It has happened before (without consequence to those on the ground). I'm not saying that's what I believe the cause was here, but it is a very real issue pilots need to be aware of.
I've never displayed but do have some hours of aerobatics from various joyrides.
If you're nice and high up and don't need to worry about the ground, and in a low powered plane you would initiate a quarter clover from a fast straight and level, pull the nose up to your intended pitch and watch the speed bleed off. You have to roll it inverted and pull through the horizontal before running out of airspeed. How quickly you reach the speed you have to roll it over at depends on your power (which is degraded with higher ambient temperature and density altitudes) and the steepness of your climb. In a jet like the Hunter (and I am speculating a bit here) I'd expect the pilot would be doing that but looking to achieve a gate altitude prior to reaching his minimum airspeed.
The base heights for civil displays are quite low - so the spectators can seen the aeroplane against a moving background. Too slow over the top means going downwards for longer. Too low over the top means a couple of hundred feet of sky you expect to have below you isn't there.
Once again I'm not saying this is what happened at Shoreham. All I'm saying is that the relevant instrumentation works by measuring the atmosphere and interpreting those measurements on a visual display which the pilot then interprets further. Mal-adjusted measurments can lead to misunderstandings of one's situation.
There's a Hunter documentary on Youtube. In it is an interview with a now-elderly test pilot who arrived to demonstrate the aircraft in Europe (Switzerland I think) and started the display by spinning the aircraft to a pre-determined height then initiate recovery to pass low over the airfield. Upon counting the turns in the spin, reaching his gate height and recovering the aircraft he found himself diving vertically at the local landscape with the fields much bigger in the windscreen than he expected. He hadn't set the altimeter to QFE before starting the display...
Was anything found by the cockpit camera in the end?
jamieduff1981 said:
RYH64E said:
TTmonkey said:
Were any of them attempting to recover from a loop at 500ft? No? What a daft thing to say mate.
The issue is not whether he could do it in this plane, the issue would be was he trying to do this at 80-100mteres lower than is possible/he realises....?
Another 50m of height and we may not of ever been having this kind of conversation would we, in all likely hood. I think he almost recovered the plane, it was flying and was flyable, and I've seen no real evidence of a mechanical failure being the cause yet. No bang, no smoke, no flames before impact.
so perhaps he has misheard ATC telling him the QFE figures, or perhaps dialled them in wrong?
He seemed to run out of sky to fly in, as he seemed to be too low to pull out of the recovery.
Would you expect such a manoeuvre to operate to such tight limits that a change in weather could lead to a catastrophic accident?The issue is not whether he could do it in this plane, the issue would be was he trying to do this at 80-100mteres lower than is possible/he realises....?
Another 50m of height and we may not of ever been having this kind of conversation would we, in all likely hood. I think he almost recovered the plane, it was flying and was flyable, and I've seen no real evidence of a mechanical failure being the cause yet. No bang, no smoke, no flames before impact.
so perhaps he has misheard ATC telling him the QFE figures, or perhaps dialled them in wrong?
He seemed to run out of sky to fly in, as he seemed to be too low to pull out of the recovery.
I've never displayed but do have some hours of aerobatics from various joyrides.
If you're nice and high up and don't need to worry about the ground, and in a low powered plane you would initiate a quarter clover from a fast straight and level, pull the nose up to your intended pitch and watch the speed bleed off. You have to roll it inverted and pull through the horizontal before running out of airspeed. How quickly you reach the speed you have to roll it over at depends on your power (which is degraded with higher ambient temperature and density altitudes) and the steepness of your climb. In a jet like the Hunter (and I am speculating a bit here) I'd expect the pilot would be doing that but looking to achieve a gate altitude prior to reaching his minimum airspeed.
The base heights for civil displays are quite low - so the spectators can seen the aeroplane against a moving background. Too slow over the top means going downwards for longer. Too low over the top means a couple of hundred feet of sky you expect to have below you isn't there.
Once again I'm not saying this is what happened at Shoreham. All I'm saying is that the relevant instrumentation works by measuring the atmosphere and interpreting those measurements on a visual display which the pilot then interprets further. Mal-adjusted measurments can lead to misunderstandings of one's situation.
There's a Hunter documentary on Youtube. In it is an interview with a now-elderly test pilot who arrived to demonstrate the aircraft in Europe (Switzerland I think) and started the display by spinning the aircraft to a pre-determined height then initiate recovery to pass low over the airfield. Upon counting the turns in the spin, reaching his gate height and recovering the aircraft he found himself diving vertically at the local landscape with the fields much bigger in the windscreen than he expected. He hadn't set the altimeter to QFE before starting the display...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff