Crash at Shoreham Air show

[dr_gn]

ChemicalChaos said:

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!

Ray Hanna, as a founder member and, later, squadron leader of the Red Arrows, was rated by many people as the most precise, meticulous and well trained pilot they ever flew with. Risks were meticulously calculated and liberties never taken. Think of him as the Alain Prost of display flying.

Look at that photo, look at the de Cadenet video, consider the proximity to people on the ground and read what you just wrote about risk and liberties. Then consider if it would get past a sensible risk assessment, should a pilot want to do a similar thing tomorrow.

Edited by dr_gn on Thursday 22 March 23:19

[Dr Jekyll]

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

The purpose of the AAIB is to investigate the cause in order to reduce the chance of a recurrence, it isn't to make the relatives feel better.

[anonymous-user]

ChemicalChaos said:

...Risks were meticulously calculated and liberties never taken....

The closest motorsport comparison I can think of to Mr Hill is Colin McRae, which is tragically accurate.

The same Colin McRae who crashed a helicopter, killing 3 other people, including 2 kids, and who was found to be entirely at fault in the investigation?

[ChemicalChaos]

OpulentBob said:

ChemicalChaos said:

...Risks were meticulously calculated and liberties never taken....

The closest motorsport comparison I can think of to Mr Hill is Colin McRae, which is tragically accurate.

The same Colin McRae who crashed a helicopter, killing 3 other people, including 2 kids, and who was found to be entirely at fault in the investigation?

Go back and read that post properly

[WilliamWoollard]

HoHoHo said:

...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...

Out of interest, at what point during the display did he say this?

[Dr Jekyll]

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

If an AA man said he heard a passenger say you were driving like a wazzock, that would not be admissible in court, hearsay evidence. If you were interviewed by the police you would be cautioned to the effect that anything you said could be used in court and you would have a right to silence.
AAIB interviews are not carried out under the same caution as a police interview. So for the police to get hold of transcripts for a fishing trip would be unfair on witnesses.
If the police did get this access the AAIB's job would be almost impossible. Display organisers, air traffic controllers, the pilots mates would be unable to say things like 'in hindsight it might have been better to do such and such differently' in an interview the police were going to be able to use. It would be treated as an admission of guilt.

[pushthebutton]

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

The aviation community also wants truth. They also want lessons learnt. I assume by justice you mean punishment for negligence?

This is the EC's and by association CAA's definition of Just Culture:

CAA said:

A culture in which front-line operators or other persons are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but in which gross negligence wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.

It may be an uncomfortable truth, but it's the foundations of a Just Culture in all forms of aviation which has enabled regulators to save countless lives as participants in all fields are free to report and discuss incidents without fear of reprisals. If the first response to any incident is the involvement of the authorities then this culture is lost. The system was tested via the courts after this accident and the courts agree that it was worth protecting:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shoreham-high-c...

In particular, there was this paragraph at the bottom:

A spokesperson for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said said:

The AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their release. We note today’s judgment and will now release the film footage to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.

History has proven unequivocally that the Just Culture has contributed more in value to ongoing safety that it has cost. That much is beyond any doubt. We can see from above that it wasn't the AAIB that blocked the disclosure of their documents, but Shoreham High Court. I think it's fair the draw the conclusion that if the 'Statements made by the pilot to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in response to discussions or interviews' are released then the statements in future investigations will stop due to the fear of self-incrimination. It seems, in my opinion, that the two are mutually exclusive.

None of the above overrides the final sentence of the Just Culture definition:

'...but in which gross negligence wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.'

it merely highlights an imperfection in a historically-proven, but imperfect, system.

[HoHoHo]

WilliamWoollard said:

HoHoHo said:

...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...

Out of interest, at what point during the display did he say this?

At a point during the loop (from memory after the top of the loop)

[SMB]

HoHoHo said:

At a point during the loop (from memory after the top of the loop)

As an eye witness I thought the same, there was a point in the first part of the descent where the angle of attack the aircraft presented suddenly changed, at that point the wings stalled and gravity was in control. I suspect that was the point at which the pilot realised it was all wrong. From memory the commentator on the day also said 'uh ooh' at the same time.

[phil squares]

Just wanted to add my thoughts into this discussion.

As a former military pilot (USAF) and a retired Airline Pilot (747-400/787/777 Capt) , I have very mixed feelings regarding the prosecution of the offending pilot. And, after flying high performance aircraft in the military, I have my own opinion regarding the specific aerobatic display at Shoreham.

I can under stand the family's desire for closure and "lessons learned". However, one of the cornerstones of air safety, especially in the western world, is no legal prosecution. This has promoted an atmosphere of self disclosure in aviation. Should pilots, ground engineers or anyone be subject to legal prosecution then the willingness to come forward and disclose mistakes will be very quickly a thing of the past.

In the Shoreham accident, I personally feel there is enough blame for everyone. Granted the Pilot was the one performing but he was allowed to do the show subject to CAA approval. Do we go after the person who signed the approval? Where does it end? The US military has very strict ruled for an aerial demonstration. I have been part of several airshows in the past and the sterile area is a very big deal. After the Ramstein airshow disaster in 88, the rules for airshows were dramatically changed. Basically, there can't be any flying over the crowd. You can't maneuver, fly over or do anything near or over the crowd. Those types of safeguards should have been mandatory in the UK.

After living in the UK for over 10 years, it seems as though "health and safety" had permeated all facets of life. However, for some reason, I think, it skipped airshows. Don't get me wrong, I love to be thrilled and to have thrilled the crowd, but at the end of the day, it's not worth it.

I understand the family's desire for "justice" but I also am aware of the desire to take care of the greater good and would hate to see the safety reporting process take a gigantic leap backwards.

[Dr Jekyll]

phil squares said:

In the Shoreham accident, I personally feel there is enough blame for everyone. Granted the Pilot was the one performing but he was allowed to do the show subject to CAA approval. Do we go after the person who signed the approval? Where does it end? The US military has very strict ruled for an aerial demonstration. I have been part of several airshows in the past and the sterile area is a very big deal. After the Ramstein airshow disaster in 88, the rules for airshows were dramatically changed. Basically, there can't be any flying over the crowd. You can't maneuver, fly over or do anything near or over the crowd. Those types of safeguards should have been mandatory in the UK.

They are.
The team involved in the Ramstein disaster were not allowed to do the relevant manoeuvre at a UK display a few months before.

[aeropilot]

ChemicalChaos said:

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

Quite......

This is where the system wasn't good, although, a not good system had largely worked for years prior to this, but such is the nature of the human race etc.

AH had been a RAF JP QFI with 900 hrs on it, yet still had a record of 'gamey' displays in the JP, and as an ex-Harrier pilot, to many people he 'should' have been 'qualified' to display the Hunter, and obtained the DA on it, through the CAA system.

But......from the few posts elsewhere by the ex-Hunter pilots that have made comments, 40 hrs or less on type is not what the RAF would have considered to be adequate to be a Hunter aero's display pilot.
Compared with the few other Hunter display pilots on the circuit at the time with many hundreds of hours on-type as well as exemplary display records, then it doesn't look as good, and its understandable why people who lost loved ones think the system was as much at fault as the individual pilot, as should he really have had a DA for the Hunter. But he met the regs and conditions at that time to hold one. That 'system' has now been changed.

But even more experienced service pilots get it wrong, but not with the same tragic outcome of affecting people on the ground so far, the example previously quoted of the crash of the RAF Phantom during practice for the Battle of Britain display at Abingdon 30 years ago(!!) and you can see that the Hunter incident at Shoreham is almost a carbon copy of that incident ...... too slow at the bottom and on the way up, and not enough height left to recover, the pilot appearing to push the nose up to try and gain height at the appex, but continuing the loop down and the F-4 struck the ground flat, slightly tail down from the horizontal, in full burner, exploding in a fireball with the loss of both crew. Several service personnel on the ground narrowly escaped injury of worse from debris. This was the pilot chosen by the RAF that year to be the solo aero's display pilot for the F-4, so in theory the pick of the instructors on the OCU, but I've seen posts from people that witnessed his displays earlier that season, that thought his display 'a little gamey and it will end in tears'..........
No 'system' is perfect, no matter who sets it up or controls it.
The F-4 pilot was far from in-experienced, having been the co-pilot on the 3 x Vulcan Black Buck Shrike raids during the Falkland War in 1982, including being the co-pilot on the infamous Vulcan divert to Rio after going tech on the way back from its mission.

Human beings make mistakes, its in our DNA, but in AH's case, he is now in the unique position of some how surviving his grave mistake where innocent others did not, and if found guilty as charged, or pleads guilty the law will hopefully reflect that.
I do wonder how he will plea........ my own suspicion is that the AAIB report evidence (and previous display red card) already is such that he will be 'encouraged' to plea guilty to a possible lesser charge ...?


I still have to give thanks to my dear departed mother who was taken ill that morning meaning I had to visit her care home instead at request of the nursing staff, as otherwise there is a strong possibility I may have been cycling along that road at that very moment, as car was packed and ready to drive down to see the Vulcan display when care home called me.

[WilliamWoollard]

HoHoHo said:

WilliamWoollard said:

HoHoHo said:

...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...

Out of interest, at what point during the display did he say this?

At a point during the loop (from memory after the top of the loop)

Thanks, that second half of the loop certainly didn’t look right even to an untrained observer. I wonder if he was deliberately lining up with the road as a reference point for the manoeuvre. Mental if so.

[HoHoHo]

ChemicalChaos said:

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

It's some time since I've seen that clip - seems he may have had a lucky escape that day!

Edited by HoHoHo on Friday 23 March 14:48

[Dr Jekyll]

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

This was the first time in sixty years that any spectator or members of the public had been killed or seriously injured in a UK display crash, and regulations had nevertheless been tightened over that period.

[phil squares]

Dr Jekyll said:

They are.
The team involved in the Ramstein disaster were not allowed to do the relevant manoeuvre at a UK display a few months before.

The Shoreham display would not have been allow under the FAA regulations due to risk to the crowd. That was the point I was making. It had nothing at all to do with the maneuver itself. The entire display needs to bee looked at; not just individual parts of it.

[Dr Jekyll]

phil squares said:

The Shoreham display would not have been allow under the FAA regulations due to risk to the crowd. That was the point I was making. It had nothing at all to do with the maneuver itself. The entire display needs to bee looked at; not just individual parts of it.

What specifically would not have been allowed?

[bitchstewie]

phil squares said:

However, one of the cornerstones of air safety, especially in the western world, is no legal prosecution. This has promoted an atmosphere of self disclosure in aviation. Should pilots, ground engineers or anyone be subject to legal prosecution then the willingness to come forward and disclose mistakes will be very quickly a thing of the past.

I must admit this concerns me.

I'm not asking for "hang 'em and flog'em" but we have a pretty fair legal system in the west and I genuinely don't understand how there can be a case for no legal prosecution regardless of how utterly negligent you may have been in your actions.

If a bus crashes due to driver negligence and 30 people die prosecutions often follow, nobody says "We think the driver was negligent but let's not charge them with negligence no matter how badly they behaved because they won't co-operate and we want them to co-operate because it improves bus safety for everyone".

I simply don't get why aviation should be any different

[Dr Jekyll]

bhstewie said:

I must admit this concerns me.

I'm not asking for "hang 'em and flog'em" but we have a pretty fair legal system in the west and I genuinely don't understand how there can be a case for no legal prosecution regardless of how utterly negligent you may have been in your actions.

If a bus crashes due to driver negligence and 30 people die prosecutions often follow, nobody says "We think the driver was negligent but let's not charge them with negligence no matter how badly they behaved because they won't co-operate and we want them to co-operate because it improves bus safety for everyone".

I simply don't get why aviation should be any different

It isn't, Andy Hill is being prosecuted.

[bitchstewie]

Dr Jekyll said:

It isn't, Andy Hill is being prosecuted.

Yes of course, I meant the view around the "cornerstone" of no legal prosecution.