Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
VansDriver said:
He intended to do it?! I think he made a mistake. That type of looping manoeuvre into the ground accident has happened many times, (invariably with serviceable aircraft in good weather). They are easy to get wrong, usually they are flown with reference to altimeter gate heights and rely on a constant and accurate pull. Get either of those wrong and your distance from the earth, while inverted, means that you may not recognise that you’re too low until the later stages of the manoeuvre when you’re pointing very much earthwards and its too late. I would say that its incredibly flaky to suggest that an experienced pilot (or any sane pilot) would choose that type of manoeuvre to cut it fine. He certainly didn’t fly himself into the ground deliberately at the bottom, so you’re in effect suggesting that he chose to cut the margin fine by flying too low at the top. Sorry, I find that ridiculous.
Anybody who refers to such activities and then goes on to say .......'They are easy to get wrong' tells me that the public are probably at greater risk than they realise - particularly those innocents who just happen to be passing nearby. Perhaps airshows need even tighter controls.
Dr Jekyll said:
But even assuming he did go into the manoeuvre 300 feet too low, that would only cause him to come out 300 feet too low. He came out at least 500 feet too low and according to reports he was 1000 feet too low at the top. So something else must have happened as well.
As well as entering too low, wasn't he about at least 40kts too slow? That would cause the speed and attainable altitude at the top to reduce fairly significantly aeropilot said:
Dr Jekyll said:
But even assuming he did go into the manoeuvre 300 feet too low, that would only cause him to come out 300 feet too low. He came out at least 500 feet too low and according to reports he was 1000 feet too low at the top. So something else must have happened as well.
Going in too low is a red herring somehwat, he could have entered the climb from 25ft......as long as he was at the min gate height at the top.......and as you say, what caused him to not abort at the top when he was obviously below the min height required to complete the manoevre at that point......?Did he just forget to check?
Did he genuinely misread the alt?
Did something else happen to divert his attention away at that critical millisec?
Or, was he just that caviller in his flying (with a lack of recent hours in the Hunter) that negligence is thus the verdict, but can that be 'proved by evidence' beyond reasonable doubt?
I certainly wouldn't like to be on that jury.
Without a FDR, no good footage of the instruments etc I don't think there's a way to really know 100%, so the jury have a very tough job.
Must be a very difficult case to try and explain to the jury as well - chances are they aren't familiar with all the aircraft jargon etc so will take a while to try and explain it to them.
JuniorD said:
Dr Jekyll said:
But even assuming he did go into the manoeuvre 300 feet too low, that would only cause him to come out 300 feet too low. He came out at least 500 feet too low and according to reports he was 1000 feet too low at the top. So something else must have happened as well.
As well as entering too low, wasn't he about at least 40kts too slow? That would cause the speed and attainable altitude at the top to reduce fairly significantly Lord Marylebone said:
saaby93 said:
It's 'If' he intended to do what he did, unless youre taking the prosecution line of making assertions to see if they stick 
Aircraft safety isnt an adversarial system. You dont present a defence. You just say what happened to try to prevent same happening again
It sounds like a licence for people like Andy Hill to be as dangerous as he wants during his flying, safe in the knowledge he won’t be proscecuted if something goes wrong Aircraft safety isnt an adversarial system. You dont present a defence. You just say what happened to try to prevent same happening again
Maybe it is high time that ‘non adversarial’ system is abolished for airshows, and possibly other recreational, entertainment, and hobby flying.
That is no good to anyone, as you learn nothing.
On the other hand, if you have a situation where any pilot could get away with anything and be exempt from prosecution, then that is very dangerous too.
Fortunately, we have something in the middle that tends to work. We have an independant body doing the investigating in the AAIB.They make no determination of whether something is legal or not, they simply state the facts as can best be determined and they are superb at doing that.
Should a pilot have broken the law, then there should be a sanction, but I am not a fan of the idea that the Police should deal with that. The CAA has an enforcement department and it is usually they who bring forward prosecutions against those deemed to have broken the Air Navigation Order. We can have a long debate about how big their teeth are and whether this still works today, but personally, I have little issue with specialists dealing with this, as this trial shows, it is a hugely technical and complicated area and very rarely is there a single reason for an incident, let alone one like this.
This is why I am uncomfortable with what is going on here. Not because Andy Hill doesn't deserve punishment if he is guilty of course, but the process that is being followed and the fact that we are going to see a long and expensive trial that will be unlikely to add anything to the knowledge that has been gleaned by the AAIB already in terms of flight safety. There's also the precedent it sets which I feel could be detrimental to flight safety in the long term.
Had Andy Hill died, then of course we wouldn't be going through this and the chances of his survival from this accident were miniscule, hence why there has been such a massive volume of internecine fighting for control of this investigation from day 1.
None of this will bring back the 11 people who died and at the end of it, this was a horrible, horrible accident. Hopefully the lessons have been learned and things will be tightened up in all areas such as Display Authorisation and control of those who fly them, as well as on the design of airshow routines as well.
The families will of course want closure and for someone to "pay" for what happened, but revenge is not part of our justice system, or at least, it shouldn't be. If Andy Hill is guilty, then he should be subject to the law and the punishments therein. How we get to that guilty verdict has been the challenge.
IforB said:
Lord Marylebone said:
saaby93 said:
It's 'If' he intended to do what he did, unless youre taking the prosecution line of making assertions to see if they stick
Aircraft safety isnt an adversarial system. You dont present a defence. You just say what happened to try to prevent same happening again
It sounds like a licence for people like Andy Hill to be as dangerous as he wants during his flying, safe in the knowledge he won’t be proscecuted if something goes wrong Aircraft safety isnt an adversarial system. You dont present a defence. You just say what happened to try to prevent same happening again
Maybe it is high time that ‘non adversarial’ system is abolished for airshows, and possibly other recreational, entertainment, and hobby flying.
That is no good to anyone, as you learn nothing.
On the other hand, if you have a situation where any pilot could get away with anything and be exempt from prosecution, then that is very dangerous too.
Fortunately, we have something in the middle that tends to work. We have an independant body doing the investigating in the AAIB.They make no determination of whether something is legal or not, they simply state the facts as can best be determined and they are superb at doing that.
Should a pilot have broken the law, then there should be a sanction, but I am not a fan of the idea that the Police should deal with that. The CAA has an enforcement department and it is usually they who bring forward prosecutions against those deemed to have broken the Air Navigation Order. We can have a long debate about how big their teeth are and whether this still works today, but personally, I have little issue with specialists dealing with this, as this trial shows, it is a hugely technical and complicated area and very rarely is there a single reason for an incident, let alone one like this.
This is why I am uncomfortable with what is going on here. Not because Andy Hill doesn't deserve punishment if he is guilty of course, but the process that is being followed and the fact that we are going to see a long and expensive trial that will be unlikely to add anything to the knowledge that has been gleaned by the AAIB already in terms of flight safety. There's also the precedent it sets which I feel could be detrimental to flight safety in the long term.
Had Andy Hill died, then of course we wouldn't be going through this and the chances of his survival from this accident were miniscule, hence why there has been such a massive volume of internecine fighting for control of this investigation from day 1.
None of this will bring back the 11 people who died and at the end of it, this was a horrible, horrible accident. Hopefully the lessons have been learned and things will be tightened up in all areas such as Display Authorisation and control of those who fly them, as well as on the design of airshow routines as well.
The families will of course want closure and for someone to "pay" for what happened, but revenge is not part of our justice system, or at least, it shouldn't be. If Andy Hill is guilty, then he should be subject to the law and the punishments therein. How we get to that guilty verdict has been the challenge.
The CAA rules have already been changed as a result, so this case isn't going have an effect on that, and isn't what this case is about, despite what some people mistakenly think.
As you say, the possiblity that this case could have a long term negative impact on flight safety is of some concern.
saaby93 said:
NDA said:
It sounds like he is being accused of doing something reckless - and if this is the case then I am sure the victim's families will want justice done.
Acrobatic manoeuvres should not be performed over major roads. There is a risk which people should not be exposed to.
At the risk of rerunning the thread, the manoeuvre ( and its not been said to be acrobatic) wasnt carried out over any roads.Acrobatic manoeuvres should not be performed over major roads. There is a risk which people should not be exposed to.
The return path back to base crossed the road
I am not an expert in these things, nor do I have any interest in watching aircraft, however it seems to me, as a casual observer, that the pilot's manoeuvre was part of a display - coming out of a loop over a road. Whether or not that was on a return path.
It may be the case that Shoreham just isn't the place to have vintage jets doing stunts.
aeropilot said:
JuniorD said:
Dr Jekyll said:
But even assuming he did go into the manoeuvre 300 feet too low, that would only cause him to come out 300 feet too low. He came out at least 500 feet too low and according to reports he was 1000 feet too low at the top. So something else must have happened as well.
As well as entering too low, wasn't he about at least 40kts too slow? That would cause the speed and attainable altitude at the top to reduce fairly significantly VansDriver said:
HoHoHo said:
Presumably prior to starting any manoeuvre he should have checked his altitude, speed etc. to ensure it was safe to complete it?
If he didn't then he's a fool and flying irresponsibly, if he did check but chose to continue and was too low that was a blatant disregard for the rules and regulations.
I go back and repeat the comment from my Training Captain/Examiner friend who was standing by me at the show on the flight line when at the top of the loop he simply said "this isn't going to end well".
Yes he would have been required to check and monitor numerous things during that manoeuvre. If he didn't then he's a fool and flying irresponsibly, if he did check but chose to continue and was too low that was a blatant disregard for the rules and regulations.
I go back and repeat the comment from my Training Captain/Examiner friend who was standing by me at the show on the flight line when at the top of the loop he simply said "this isn't going to end well".
Him positively checking and confirming that he was significantly below mins at the top of that manoeuvre, and continuing to pull anyway, is not a realistic possibility, (In my opinion) unless he was intending to commit suicide that day.
More likely is that he made a cognitive error- for example- he missed a height check, probably combined with too tight a pull on the way up or too slack a pull initially on the way down. People can make these errors and not be aware that they have made them due to a whole host of reasons that fall within the subject of “human factors”. Doing so does not necessarily mean that you are a fool flying irresponsibly. It can be an unfortunate characteristic of being a human.
Edited by andy97 on Thursday 17th January 12:40
Naïve question here but if, as reports suggest, he was 1000 feet too low at the top. Might he have just checked the 'hundreds' needle on the altimeter but not the 'thousands'? Sounds like it could be an easy habit to get into.
Of course the real question is still why was he so low in the first place.
Of course the real question is still why was he so low in the first place.
Just been checking back a 100 pages - what happened to TinRobot?
No it was the courts that refused
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
saaby93 said:
TinRobot said:
saaby93 said:
Why do you say that?
The AIBB refused access to Andy Hills statements, cockpit footage and other information. 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.
andy97 said:
aeropilot said:
JuniorD said:
Dr Jekyll said:
But even assuming he did go into the manoeuvre 300 feet too low, that would only cause him to come out 300 feet too low. He came out at least 500 feet too low and according to reports he was 1000 feet too low at the top. So something else must have happened as well.
As well as entering too low, wasn't he about at least 40kts too slow? That would cause the speed and attainable altitude at the top to reduce fairly significantly 
I still think this was the 'mistake' (his mental 'autopilot' was in JP mode not Hunter)
Almost a 1000 hrs in the JP (including his time as a RAF QFI) and not even 50 hrs on the Hunter, and having never flown the Hunter in RAF service.
Mind you, he was flying the JP at Southport when his display was called 'stop', so he even has previous flying the JP.
NDA said:
It may be the case that Shoreham just isn't the place to have vintage jets doing stunts.
Shoreham is no different to a lot of airfields hosting such displays which are without doubt extremely popular Two observations from my perspective (as a witness)
In my experience any air display is under normal circumstances is very safe and providing the rules and regulations are adhered to. The idea being in the event of a failure the aircraft should have time to do what it needs to do to cause the least amount of collateral damage as it can. Clearly a catastrophic failure is a totally different kettle of monkeys and no rules or regulations or locations will help (Ramstein for example). We have to hope that as an individual you are not in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It became evident extremely quickly during the day as the events unfolded that Shoreham being an airfield with essentially one way in and one way out (the south side is limited by a single track road with a 2m height bridge restriction) is not suitable for fast evacuation. We were contained within the airfield for many hours and our cars weren't available to pick up until Sunday (I'm not moaning, I'm simply saying how it was). So in short Shoreham probably isn't the best airfield not because of the roads nearby, but as a venue it wasn't easy to get out when 'the perfect storm' happened.
If you take Duxford and others for example, they have major roads the aircraft fly over and I'm aware of a number of flight issues over the years that did not end in tragic deaths of either spectators or those simply driving past the airfield.
I don't therefore think there's any issue with vintage jets 'doing stunts' providing all the boxes are ticked. Personally and having to complete H&S forms for exhibitions and events I'm amazed Shoreham got signed off!
I should think that a man of his flying experience would be even more acutely aware of the risk of getting "mixing up" when flying different aircraft types, especially with so relatively few hours on one type. While it is entirely possible that it could have happened, I think it is unforgivable in the circumstances.
Robertj21a said:
JW called as a witness........for the prosecution it would seem..........wasn't expecting that!Interesting.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff