Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
BrabusMog said:
If you knew a victim and read some of the stuff spouted on this thread you'd not be happy. There are/were some incredibly crass posters on this thread, including the one in quote here who said the people who died aren't victims.
Yes but I put it down to that old thing about don't attribute malice when it's just people typing before thinking.I think you have to simply assume that with all the information available to them the AAIB and CPS are in a better position to judge the situation than any of us.
saaby93 said:
BrabusMog said:
You really are a piece of work.
Whatever that means 
If youre really interested in improving safety you'll understand the principles. If youre not you wont
BrabusMog said:
saaby93 said:
BrabusMog said:
You really are a piece of work.
Whatever that means If youre really interested in improving safety you'll understand the principles. If youre not you wont
Look, going back to the victim thing, theres too much turning people into victims and theyre beginning to stand up to it with 'I am not a victim'
There's a whole article here that shows it's not necessary to refer to people in tragic circumstances as victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaste...
Some writers do, some dont
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 22 March 20:09
BrabusMog said:
And here's a great tip for improving safety - don't allow old aircraft to do dangerous stunts over busy A roads...
I’m not sure that’s the answer.I think we will find the organisers didn’t complete their Risk Assements properly. They didn’t know what his routine was because it wasn’t an issue.
The pilot for reasons best known to himself decided not to fly within air show guidelines and having had insufficient training (apparently) to rotate at the top of a loop if you’re not where you should be (which I find difficult to believe but that’s what I’ve read and surely a simple half roll either at the top or just after flying away would do the job?)
Anyway, a number of factors with various people to blame is I’m sure will be the outcome (albeit only the pilot has been charged).
In my eyes ultimately only the pilot is in charge of a machine that makes a mess when it crashes. He is responsible alone for ensuring he doesn’t endanger life when flying to and from a venue or during his routine, he alone is responsible to ensure he is at the right height in the right place at the right time. You can’t blame anyone else and it appears the aircraft wasn’t at fault. I can tell you there was no puff of smoke, noises or anything else that gave me the impression on that day there was anything wrong with the aircraft (I was there as we know). As I have also said previously one of my friends with me watching from the crowd line is a senior Captain/training Captain/examiner and he said prior to the crash ‘this isn’t going to end well’ He wasn’t wrong.
I’m sure many airfields have roads at either end and so to say don’t fly over a busy A road simply isn’t possible. Look at Dunsfold or Duxford for example and they’re only two out of I don’t know how many.
Sadly I suspect the reason for the long overdue decision to prosecute is simply because the CPS knew her made a grave error of judgment and wanted to ensure the have him banged to rights.
It won’t bring those no longer with us back but it will provide a conclusion for those close and left behind.
BrabusMog said:
And here's a great tip for improving safety - don't allow old aircraft to do dangerous stunts over busy A roads...
I’m not sure that’s the answer.I think we will find the organisers didn’t complete their Risk Assements properly. They didn’t know what his routine was because it wasn’t an issue.
The pilot for reasons best known to himself decided not to fly within air show guidelines and having had insufficient training (apparently) to rotate at the top of a loop if you’re not where you should be (which I find difficult to believe but that’s what I’ve read and surely a simple half roll either at the top or just after flying away would do the job?)
Anyway, a number of factors with various people to blame is I’m sure will be the outcome (albeit only the pilot has been charged).
In my eyes ultimately only the pilot is in charge of a machine that makes a mess when it crashes. He is responsible alone for ensuring he doesn’t endanger life when flying to and from a venue or during his routine, he alone is responsible to ensure he is at the right height in the right place at the right time. You can’t blame anyone else and it appears the aircraft wasn’t at fault. I can tell you there was no puff of smoke, noises or anything else that gave me the impression on that day there was anything wrong with the aircraft (I was there as we know). As I have also said previously one of my friends with me watching from the crowd line is a senior Captain/training Captain/examiner and he said prior to the crash ‘this isn’t going to end well’ He wasn’t wrong.
I’m sure many airfields have roads at either end and so to say don’t fly over a busy A road simply isn’t possible. Look at Dunsfold or Duxford for example and they’re only two out of I don’t know how many.
Sadly I suspect the reason for the long overdue decision to prosecute is simply because the CPS knew he made a grave error of judgment and they wanted to ensure they have him banged to rights.
It won’t bring those no longer with us back but it will provide a conclusion for those close and left behind.
Edited by HoHoHo on Thursday 22 March 20:44
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Yes but I put it down to that old thing about don't attribute malice when it's just people typing before thinking.
I think you have to simply assume that with all the information available to them the AAIB and CPS are in a better position to judge the situation than any of us.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted. I think you have to simply assume that with all the information available to them the AAIB and CPS are in a better position to judge the situation than any of us.
Precisely for the reasons above, many years ago AAIB were given first call on investigation over the police
i.e. police first priority to prosecute, so you could see a stream of people being regularly prosecuted when the same thing happens over and over again
AAIB first priority is prevention. it happens once, practices change, should never happen again
and as has been said it wont bring people back but it should prevent others suffering same
ETA
in which case we should be able to see what the AAIB thought went wrong
and their recommended change in practices so as to prevent it happening again
here
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 22 March 21:09
saaby93 said:
Why do you say that?
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shoreham-high-c...
However if you're interested in such matters have a look at the 14 recommendations
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...
including 6.2
AAIB said:
Safety Recommendation 2016-043
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority introduce a process to immediately suspend the Display Authorisation of a pilot whose competence is in doubt, pending investigation of the occurrence and if appropriate re-evaluation by a Display Authorisation Evaluator who was not involved in its issue or renewal.
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority introduce a process to immediately suspend the Display Authorisation of a pilot whose competence is in doubt, pending investigation of the occurrence and if appropriate re-evaluation by a Display Authorisation Evaluator who was not involved in its issue or renewal.
48k said:
saaby93 said:
AAIB first priority is prevention.
People keep saying this, it's incorrect. The clue is in the letter "I".
at the beginning of the report
AAIB said:
The AAIB investigation of the accident to G-BXFI is an independent process but it has and will continue to inform the CAA Review.The AAIB recognises that as well as being enjoyed by large numbers of spectators and participants, flying displays are also considered to provide important economic and educational benefits
1
. The sole purpose of an AAIB investigation is to improve aviation safety by determining the causes of accidents and serious incidents to make Safety Recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. It does not therefore consider the balance between those benefits and improvements.This Special Bulletin considers public protection and safety management at flying displays.
A final report will be published in due course.
Fourteen Safety Recommendations are made.
1
. The sole purpose of an AAIB investigation is to improve aviation safety by determining the causes of accidents and serious incidents to make Safety Recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. It does not therefore consider the balance between those benefits and improvements.This Special Bulletin considers public protection and safety management at flying displays.
A final report will be published in due course.
Fourteen Safety Recommendations are made.
saaby93 said:
There's little point in trying to prosecute someone so they clam up and a different pilot or whatever, makes the same mistake a year later.
Oh well that's ok then.Let's just allow pilots to fly however they want and be immune from prosecution when they kill people. I'm sure everyone will be fine with that.
Is there a threshold at which you think a pilots standard of flying is so poor that you would agree prosecution was ok? Or is it never ok to attempt to prosecute a pilot?
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Why steady on?I agree with you re the grief. Sadly I am also a witness to the two killed at Barnes Green last month and I can relate to tragic and sudden death.
Oh, and I agree they’ve been let down by the system however I’m not sure the pilot is taking one for the boys though!
I’d like to think of the organisers et al were equally culpable they would be getting a visit from the CPS....perhaps the trial will help unravel the true facts.
Lord Marylebone said:
saaby93 said:
There's little point in trying to prosecute someone so they clam up and a different pilot or whatever, makes the same mistake a year later.
Oh well that's ok then.Let's just allow pilots to fly however they want and be immune from prosecution when they kill people. I'm sure everyone will be fine with that.
Is there a threshold at which you think a pilots standard of flying is so poor that you would agree prosecution was ok? Or is it never ok to attempt to prosecute a pilot?
The idea of the system is to prevent what youve just said.
And it doesnt matter what I think - it's how the system works, and if you hadnt noticed a pilot is being prosecuted
Caruso said:
saaby93 said:
If the camera is at 6 feet how high is the plane
I don't know but I set my lawnmower blades higher than that!The closest motorsport comparison I can think of to Mr Hill is Colin McRae, which is tragically accurate.
As if further proof were needed by the way, I found this video, which shows the aforementioned Jet Provost incident
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RwhLSHpeiE8
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff