Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The floor was 200 feet, he was required climb to 500 feet before starting the manoeuvre, but since the manoeuvre started with a climb it's difficult to determine whether he did or not. In any case starting 300 feet low would in itself result in the top being 300 feet low, not 1000 feet.
HoHoHo said:
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 am, however, very interested in the safety of those people living/travelling near to one of these events, where they are totally innocent parties. Why is it acceptable to have such acrobatics carried out over populated areas ? Why not restrict them to being over the sea, moorland etc ?. If there aren't enough airports that meet that criteria then Tough - concentrate the shows where they can be safely and properly accommodated without innocent parties having to endure the additional risks.
Robertj21a said:
HoHoHo said:
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 am, however, very interested in the safety of those people living/travelling near to one of these events, where they are totally innocent parties. Why is it acceptable to have such acrobatics carried out over populated areas ? Why not restrict them to being over the sea, moorland etc ?. If there aren't enough airports that meet that criteria then Tough - concentrate the shows where they can be safely and properly accommodated without innocent parties having to endure the additional risks.
Robertj21a said:
HoHoHo said:
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 am, however, very interested in the safety of those people living/travelling near to one of these events, where they are totally innocent parties. Why is it acceptable to have such acrobatics carried out over populated areas ? Why not restrict them to being over the sea, moorland etc ?. If there aren't enough airports that meet that criteria then Tough - concentrate the shows where they can be safely and properly accommodated without innocent parties having to endure the additional risks.
Have you ever driven on the M25 past Heathrow, perhaps the M23 past Gatwick, the M62 past Manchester or the M6 past Birmingham airports and look where they are situated............aircraft are landing and taking off over major roads all day, every day (and not just in the UK but around the globe) and bear in mind take off is regarded as the most critical part of a flight.
Aircraft are not inherently dangerous, they are by far much safer than they are unsafe and I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.
As I mentioned, Shoreham is perhaps not the best place for an airshow however that's simply down to entry and exit rather than its location.
HoHoHo said:
The fact is airshows are popular and it's worth mentioning IMO - from memory the second highest attended day out in the UK.
Have you ever driven on the M25 past Heathrow, perhaps the M23 past Gatwick, the M62 past Manchester or the M6 past Birmingham airports and look where they are situated............aircraft are landing and taking off over major roads all day, every day (and not just in the UK but around the globe) and bear in mind take off is regarded as the most critical part of a flight.
Aircraft are not inherently dangerous, they are by far much safer than they are unsafe and I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.
As I mentioned, Shoreham is perhaps not the best place for an airshow however that's simply down to entry and exit rather than its location.
I drive past Heathrow and Gatwick very frequently but I've never seen any jet undertaking acrobatics over the area.Have you ever driven on the M25 past Heathrow, perhaps the M23 past Gatwick, the M62 past Manchester or the M6 past Birmingham airports and look where they are situated............aircraft are landing and taking off over major roads all day, every day (and not just in the UK but around the globe) and bear in mind take off is regarded as the most critical part of a flight.
Aircraft are not inherently dangerous, they are by far much safer than they are unsafe and I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.
As I mentioned, Shoreham is perhaps not the best place for an airshow however that's simply down to entry and exit rather than its location.
Robertj21a said:
HoHoHo said:
The fact is airshows are popular and it's worth mentioning IMO - from memory the second highest attended day out in the UK.
Have you ever driven on the M25 past Heathrow, perhaps the M23 past Gatwick, the M62 past Manchester or the M6 past Birmingham airports and look where they are situated............aircraft are landing and taking off over major roads all day, every day (and not just in the UK but around the globe) and bear in mind take off is regarded as the most critical part of a flight.
Aircraft are not inherently dangerous, they are by far much safer than they are unsafe and I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.
As I mentioned, Shoreham is perhaps not the best place for an airshow however that's simply down to entry and exit rather than its location.
I drive past Heathrow and Gatwick very frequently but I've never seen any jet undertaking acrobatics over the area.Have you ever driven on the M25 past Heathrow, perhaps the M23 past Gatwick, the M62 past Manchester or the M6 past Birmingham airports and look where they are situated............aircraft are landing and taking off over major roads all day, every day (and not just in the UK but around the globe) and bear in mind take off is regarded as the most critical part of a flight.
Aircraft are not inherently dangerous, they are by far much safer than they are unsafe and I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.
As I mentioned, Shoreham is perhaps not the best place for an airshow however that's simply down to entry and exit rather than its location.
You only have to look at the number of accidents near airports where aircraft have run onto roads after a failed take off/landing to see that's happened far more frequently than the Shoreham crash scenario
JuniorD said:
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.
I suggest you talk to Human Factors specialists about that. People get mixed up in everyday life all the time.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I would say that, despite entering too low, it was the gate at the top of the loop where it should've been checked/aborted. I assume if he'd needed to he could've pulled out at that point with little consequence other than spoiling his display?If he'd elongated the climb to account for the low floor when entering it wouldn't have been an issue.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why do you persist with this fixation that the problem was soley by being too low entering the loop.....despite being told the critical point of no return is at the top, and its NOT just a factor of height, as it's a combined factor of height and energy. Thus there was still time for that to be corrected on the way up.You can be at the right height but with the wrong energy, and there's no certainty of making it at the bottom, as almost happened to a current serving pilot flying a current service jet not that long ago......and it was by the slimest of margins that he avoided a smoking hole in the ground at the bottom.
andy97 said:
JuniorD said:
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.
I suggest you talk to Human Factors specialists about that. People get mixed up in everyday life all the time.
HoHoHo said:
Of course not, my point is aircraft fly over roads all the time and I would suggest there's more risk of a 747 landing on you as it takes off then a vintage jet performing a loop - providing the vintage jet is performing the loop correctly in the first place.
You only have to look at the number of accidents near airports where aircraft have run onto roads after a failed take off/landing to see that's happened far more frequently than the Shoreham crash scenario
I don’t think you can compare airshows and airports.You only have to look at the number of accidents near airports where aircraft have run onto roads after a failed take off/landing to see that's happened far more frequently than the Shoreham crash scenario
An airport provides a vital transport service, and for practicality reasons must be near major transport links and population centres.
Clearly you would try to make flying as safe as possible and not ban it if there was the occasional accident. The positives vastly outweigh the incidents.
The same as you wouldn’t ban busses because there were some bus accidents.
But if performing stunts and showing off busses at a ‘bus show’ was a thing, and it resulted in the deaths of the public, you may consider banning bus shows as they are clearly non-vital.
As we said months ago, airshows are one of the only ‘leisure events’ I can think of that pose a risk to the general public at large, and not just the willing spectators.
I am not an advocate of banning things. They can be as dangerous as you like for willing participants or spectators.
But maybe airshows should be moved to areas where there isn’t major roads or population areas for several miles around.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 17th January 15:32
HoHoHo said:
Robertj21a said:
HoHoHo said:
The fact is airshows are popular and it's worth mentioning IMO - from memory the second highest attended day out in the UK.
Have you ever driven on the M25 past Heathrow, perhaps the M23 past Gatwick, the M62 past Manchester or the M6 past Birmingham airports and look where they are situated............aircraft are landing and taking off over major roads all day, every day (and not just in the UK but around the globe) and bear in mind take off is regarded as the most critical part of a flight.
Aircraft are not inherently dangerous, they are by far much safer than they are unsafe and I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.
As I mentioned, Shoreham is perhaps not the best place for an airshow however that's simply down to entry and exit rather than its location.
I drive past Heathrow and Gatwick very frequently but I've never seen any jet undertaking acrobatics over the area.Have you ever driven on the M25 past Heathrow, perhaps the M23 past Gatwick, the M62 past Manchester or the M6 past Birmingham airports and look where they are situated............aircraft are landing and taking off over major roads all day, every day (and not just in the UK but around the globe) and bear in mind take off is regarded as the most critical part of a flight.
Aircraft are not inherently dangerous, they are by far much safer than they are unsafe and I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.
As I mentioned, Shoreham is perhaps not the best place for an airshow however that's simply down to entry and exit rather than its location.
You only have to look at the number of accidents near airports where aircraft have run onto roads after a failed take off/landing to see that's happened far more frequently than the Shoreham crash scenario
That has no bearing on those poor souls that were just passing in the traffic at that precise moment in time, but I wouldn't be surprised if many others there that day outside the fence were there for that reason only.
JuniorD said:
andy97 said:
JuniorD said:
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.
I suggest you talk to Human Factors specialists about that. People get mixed up in everyday life all the time.
“Dont believe he has even suggested it”, well he wouldnt would he?
I discuss HF in accidents virtually every day with a Chartered HF specialist who has conducted accident investigations, inc fatal accident investigations, as the main part of their job for over 12 years. I think they would assert that people, inc experienced pilots, do get mixed up between types and make incorrect decisions as a result.
Having read details of this case, they were astonished that someone could display 2 different types of aircraft with different performance characteristics. They would also assert that HF in aviation is no where near as well understood as the industry would like to think. Indeed, having compared approaches with several industries, inc aviation, they concluded that HF is not even that well understood in the AAIB, who i dont think even have a Chartered HF specialist on the staff.
Edited by andy97 on Thursday 17th January 15:59
andy97 said:
Having read details of this case, they were astonished that someone could display 2 different types of aircraft with different performance characteristics. .
That on its own isn't the issue, plenty of people have done so safely over the decades without issue........The focus would be more on the disproportionate experience on one rather than the difference in aircraft performance. But again, this has now already been addressed by the CAA since the Shoreham incident.
I can remember Mark Hanna flying an immaculate Hunter display at Duxford in the same display on the same afternoon that he flew a Spitfire display.
But Mark had several hundred hours on the Hunter obtained during his RAF service.
aeropilot said:
andy97 said:
Having read details of this case, they were astonished that someone could display 2 different types of aircraft with different performance characteristics. .
That on its own isn't the issue, plenty of people have done so safely over the decades without issue........The focus would be more on the disproportionate experience on one rather than the difference in aircraft performance. But again, this has now already been addressed by the CAA since the Shoreham incident.
I can remember Mark Hanna flying an immaculate Hunter display at Duxford in the same display on the same afternoon that he flew a Spitfire display.
But Mark had several hundred hours on the Hunter obtained during his RAF service.
By way of simplistic examples though, i regularly drive both manual and auto cars. Sometimes on the same day. Despite being a very experienced driver, member of IAM and a race / instructor licence holder i have occasionally driven a manual and forgotten to depress the clutch / change down when approaching a junction. I have also tried to change gear manually when in the auto.
A different example. I had a new kitchen fitted about 6 years ago; every so often i still try to put waste in the bin under the sink when it was moved to a dufferent location when the new kitchen was installed.
People occasionslly revert to previous experience and make mistakes in their current environment.
I dont know the cause of this accident but i do think that the massive disparity in experience on the types may have led to mistakenly entering that part of the display in “JP mode” and not “Hunter mode”. It may also have meant that recognition of that came too late, if at all, to recover.
I dont know whether the pilot was negligent or not; i do think that the possible HF mix up by the pilot between the aircraft types may have been had a contributory factor.
It doesnt matter what i think, but my Chartered HF Accident Investigator thinks similarly.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff