Crash at Shoreham Air show

[aeropilot]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Indeed.

And I'd say in this case that is a total legal precedent, I'd be even more wary of their ability, as pretty much the whole legal system from Police to Judge will have next to nothing to refer to for guidance, and why the whole thing has had to be dragged out for so long, as well as having to have to AAIB report to wait for.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

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

As well as the low height, he was also too slow at entry and then failed to engage full power on the ascent, both of which would've collaborated with the already low entry height to put the aircraft on the A27.

[NDA]

aeropilot said:

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.

Does 'pretty much' mean there's an understanding rather than a regulation?

There are many people (me included) who have little interest in watching aircraft going around in circles. However, it seems rather risky to have vintage aircraft pulling out of loops over major roads and perhaps Shoreham is therefore not the best location for such displays? There are lots of other runways with acres of empty space over which to display.

[pushthebutton]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There is some scope for interpretation and debate if you think of the start of the maneuver as requiring a certain level of energy rather than an arbitrary height.

Entering the loop at 500ft, but 150kts is clearly not desirable. Let's say that the accepted energy state is 300kts at 500ft and you are doing 400kts at 185ft. Is it acceptable to commence the pull up and be passing 500ft at 350kts and the continue to complete the loop? I'd say that it is as long as you have a margin as you pass your required gates for height and speed at the top of the loop. It has also been mentioned that the aerobatic maneuver isn't deemed to have began until passing 30 degrees pitch. So, is 350kts at 185ft pitching to 30 degrees to pass 300kts at 500ft an acceptable start to the loop given that you check your gates at the top and react accordingly?

I think it's clear that the speed and height gates weren't met at the top of the loop and any pilot, or even human, who has experienced reaching and then exceeding their mental capacity in a dynamic situation will have some empathy not only for the situation that AH found himself in, but also the numerous contributory factors, some of which aren't immediately obvious to someone having exceeded their mental capacity. There isn't a pilot alive who hasn't, at at least one point in their career, experienced this.

[aeropilot]

NDA said:

However, it seems rather risky to have vintage aircraft pulling out of loops over major roads and perhaps Shoreham is therefore not the best location for such displays?

Yes, Shoreham wasn't the best venue in many respects, and why some operators wouldn't display there.

NDA said:

There are lots of other runways with acres of empty space over which to display.

Actually, in the UK that is no longer true, which is why there are vastly fewer displays now compared with 20, 30, 40 years ago.

[Robertj21a]

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.

I appreciate that you are trying to stick to hard facts (even if it comes over as highly defensive) but where on earth have you found anything to suggest that it wasn't over the road ?
Everything I've seen suggests that being over the A27 was very much a key part of the manoeuvre.

[saaby93]

Robertj21a said:

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.

I appreciate that you are trying to stick to hard facts (even if it comes over as highly defensive) but where on earth have you found anything to suggest that it wasn't over the road ?
Everything I've seen suggests that being over the A27 was very much a key part of the manoeuvre.

There are some graphics - must be around page 50 showing the manouvre was out over open fields
After it they naturally travel level back to the airfield including crossing the road - what could go wrong?
If I remember there was some discussion about 500ft rule too, in that the manoeuvre has to begin above 500ft , but you still have to travel to the starting point and in some cases that will include take off, so it wasnt clear the getting there couldnt be under 500ft
Then you have the other issue of whether he knew he was under 500ft or there was a mess up with the altimeter
The AAIB report isnt judgemental it just says what happened, but there still seem to be some holes in it

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Theres a difference between a mistake and a deliberate act, and the trial should be able to come to a conclusion on that.

If it was a genuine honest mistake, it's still manslaughter.

[saaby93]

This video shows you can be under 500ft on takeoff or for a low pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs
Looks crazy to me.............

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 22 March 11:19

[aeropilot]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not necessarily, because we also know he was too slow, so with the sink rate at the bottom, its not a given that he'd have 'got away with it, had entry been higher. You can't apply just the one criteria when there are several at work at the same time.

Essentially, I suspect his 'mind' was set to a JP display rather than where his mind had to be for a Hunter display, but with such limited hours on the Hunter compared to JP this is where it all went wrong.
Mind you, his previous JP displays (given he had nearly 900 hours on it!) were clearly not anything to write home about....!

[pushthebutton]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I can see why you would think that if you're tied into the thought process of height and speed being separate unconnected variables, but they're not. A raised floor provides zero margin to an unacceptably low entry speed. 'Sticking to the floor' will provide limited mitigation in that scenario. Varying the entry height with an excess of energy is acceptable, according to accounts from display pilots, as long as you make you gates at the top of the loop. If you want to fixate on something the you'd be better placed to do so on the gates at the top of the loop which will provide 100% of the mitigation that you seek.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

This video shows you can be under 500ft on takeoff or for a low pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs
Looks crazy to me.............

A Hunter handles somewhat differently from a Spitfire.
The Spitfire in the clip isn't engaged in high energy aerobatics.

But thanks for sharing.

[aeropilot]

saaby93 said:

This video shows you can be under 500ft on takeoff or for a low pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs
Looks crazy to me.............

About as irrelevant comparison as you could pick......

[steve-5snwi]

Pilots get things wrong from time to time, be it in a historic aircraft or an Airbus 320 its why we have accidents and people can and very often do get hurt or lose their life.

Will this be a first for a pilot being charged with manslaughter and if so what implications does this have ? Planes landing on roads always have a chance of happening, it can never be avoided and i'm sure people on the M25 watching planes come in are always in danger, the 777 that had fuel freezing only just made it, the 737 at kegworth hit the M1 and there have been other instances where pilot error was to blame. Given this looks like it was pilot error what makes this a special case giving the CPS power to prosecute and not leave the job to the AAIB whose job it is to sop things like this happening again.

[dr_gn]

saaby93 said:

This video shows you can be under 500ft on takeoff or for a low pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs
Looks crazy to me.............

Yet that pilot is often referred to (by both fellow pilots and enthusiasts) as being "legendary".

I guess these type of guys are always needing to impress, and are always one preventable accident away from being a dhead.

[Europa1]

steve-5snwi said:

Given this looks like it was pilot error what makes this a special case giving the CPS power to prosecute and not leave the job to the AAIB whose job it is to sop things like this happening again.

The CPS has evidently determined that the 4 stage test for gross negligence manslaughter has been met:

1) a duty of care was owed to the victims;

2) that duty was breached, and in a way which

3) caused or was a significant contributory factor to the death of the victims and

4) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence

[anonymous-user]

steve-5snwi said:

Pilots get things wrong from time to time, be it in a historic aircraft or an Airbus 320 its why we have accidents and people can and very often do get hurt or lose their life.

Will this be a first for a pilot being charged with manslaughter and if so what implications does this have ? Planes landing on roads always have a chance of happening, it can never be avoided and i'm sure people on the M25 watching planes come in are always in danger, the 777 that had fuel freezing only just made it, the 737 at kegworth hit the M1 and there have been other instances where pilot error was to blame. Given this looks like it was pilot error what makes this a special case giving the CPS power to prosecute and not leave the job to the AAIB whose job it is to sop things like this happening again.

I suspect, and I could be wrong, that it's at least partly because the victims died as a result of entertainment going wrong.

Planes, busses, trains, cars, ferries, etc could all be classed as necessary transport, and they are operated in a fashion that makes the journeys as safe as possible. Safety is the primary concern.

It is accepted that during essential transport, and despite everyone's best and most careful efforts, accidents and equipment failures can happen and people may die. I don't know how helpful it would be to try to prosecute people in those circumstances unless it was shown that they were grossly negligent or wilfully reckless.

Aircraft at an airshow are being flown purely for entertainment.

People will be prosecuted if they are shown to be careless, reckless or negligent (Costa Concordia).

If spectators, or worse people outside the arena, died at a monster truck show or similar then I would expect the organisers and/or the driver to be prosecuted. I see this as the same.

I don't know. Just spouting!

[aeropilot]

steve-5snwi said:

Given this looks like it was pilot error what makes this a special case giving the CPS power to prosecute .

This is a precedent case in that people on the ground have been killed, AND the pilot has survived.

steve-5snwi said:

and not leave the job to the AAIB whose job it is to sop things like this happening again.

That is NOT the job of the AAIB.

[Dr Jekyll]

dr_gn said:

saaby93 said:

This video shows you can be under 500ft on takeoff or for a low pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs
Looks crazy to me.............

Yet that pilot is often referred to (by both fellow pilots and enthusiasts) as being "legendary".

I guess these type of guys are always needing to impress, and are always one preventable accident away from being a dhead.

That particular pilot was noted for low passes but always performed aerobatics at a decent altitude. It's aeros at a few hundred feet rather than passes at a few dozen feet that tend to cause the problems.

[anonymous-user]

dr_gn said:

saaby93 said:

This video shows you can be under 500ft on takeoff or for a low pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs
Looks crazy to me.............

Yet that pilot is often referred to (by both fellow pilots and enthusiasts) as being "legendary".

I guess these type of guys are always needing to impress, and are always one preventable accident away from being a dhead.

Indeed.
There are old pilots and bold pilots. Not both.
And not every legend has a happy ending.