Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
I said ages back that considering the weather at the time it looked like pilot error and it still does.
The issue this pilot has now with his explanation is that he had so many recording devices on board, as is the modern way. So his viewpoint has check marks against it for the jury.
I think he is pissing in the wind with his convoluted excuses considering all that evidence to be honest. We shall see. A psychologist will have a nice PH.d with him from his first airshows to the last. Probably an area not covered well compared to civilian aircraft CRM etc.
The issue this pilot has now with his explanation is that he had so many recording devices on board, as is the modern way. So his viewpoint has check marks against it for the jury.
I think he is pissing in the wind with his convoluted excuses considering all that evidence to be honest. We shall see. A psychologist will have a nice PH.d with him from his first airshows to the last. Probably an area not covered well compared to civilian aircraft CRM etc.
saaby93 said:
Robertj21a said:
Prosecution asking same questions as defence yesterdaysame answer received - it's the camera angle
Vertical to ground separation and pilot flight input is all that matters if no mechanical issues during that display piece as no weather involved.
Only other thing to consider would be pilot medical condition. I just don't see that being a factor given evidence.
He's now living his own hell I guess, probably enough punishment.
saaby93 said:
Robertj21a said:
Prosecution asking same questions as defence yesterdaysame answer received - it's the camera angle
Gandahar said:
Completely irrelevant to what happened on the day.
Vertical to ground separation and pilot flight input is all that matters if no mechanical issues during that display piece as no weather involved.
Only other thing to consider would be pilot medical condition. I just don't see that being a factor given evidence.
He's now living his own hell I guess, probably enough punishment.
Not necessarily.Vertical to ground separation and pilot flight input is all that matters if no mechanical issues during that display piece as no weather involved.
Only other thing to consider would be pilot medical condition. I just don't see that being a factor given evidence.
He's now living his own hell I guess, probably enough punishment.
Kill 11 people by reckless driving and there is a good chance you may receive the maximum 14 year stretch.
Lord Marylebone said:
Not necessarily.
Kill 11 people by reckless driving and there is a good chance you may receive the maximum 14 year stretch.
Not really much to go by, but 10 deaths by dangerous driving got Gary Hart a 5 year sentence and 30 months inside.Kill 11 people by reckless driving and there is a good chance you may receive the maximum 14 year stretch.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/12/transpo...
Obviously there are varying degrees of recklessness though, and it would be reasonable to think that driving in a sleep deprived state with very extraordinary consequences unfolding, is rather less reckless than pulling some sort of stunt with greater inherent risks.
theboss said:
Not really much to go by, but 10 deaths by dangerous driving got Gary Hart a 5 year sentence and 30 months inside.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/12/transpo...
Obviously there are varying degrees of recklessness though, and it would be reasonable to think that driving in a sleep deprived state with very extraordinary consequences unfolding, is rather less reckless than pulling some sort of stunt with greater inherent risks.
I quite agree.https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/12/transpo...
Obviously there are varying degrees of recklessness though, and it would be reasonable to think that driving in a sleep deprived state with very extraordinary consequences unfolding, is rather less reckless than pulling some sort of stunt with greater inherent risks.
HoHoHo said:
Lord Marylebone said:
oakdale said:
Plane "not being particularly well flown".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47241...
In that article it says his seat ejected from the aircraft. Was this something that happened by accident on impact?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47241...
RichB said:
HoHoHo said:
Lord Marylebone said:
oakdale said:
Plane "not being particularly well flown".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47241...
In that article it says his seat ejected from the aircraft. Was this something that happened by accident on impact?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47241...
"The pilot did not attempt to jettison the aircraft’s canopy or activate his ejection seat. However, disruption of the aircraft due to the impact activated the canopy jettison process and caused the ejection seat firing mechanism to initiate. The seat firing sequence was not completed due to damage sustained by its firing mechanism during the impact. The seat was released from the aircraft and the pilot was released from the seat as a result of partial operation of the sequencing mechanism."
RichB said:
dmsims said:
or you could just read the AAIB report
Jeez' has everyone on this thread got their heads up their arses! It was a polite and simple question. What the f
k is up with Pistonheads, is it full of internet warriors these days? Knob. 
At least he took the trouble to quote the useful paragraph
saaby93 said:
RichB said:
dmsims said:
or you could just read the AAIB report
Jeez' has everyone on this thread got their heads up their arses! It was a polite and simple question. What the fk is up with Pistonheads, is it full of internet warriors these days? Knob. At least he took the trouble to quote the useful paragraph
RichB said:
dmsims said:
or you could just read the AAIB report
Jeez' has everyone on this thread got their heads up their arses! It was a polite and simple question. What the fk is up with Pistonheads, is it full of internet warriors these days? Knob. 
Risking being told to look it up, can I venture a question?!
This trial is obviously about Andy Hill - negligent/ not negligent. However, does the owner of the plane get dragged into this anywhere? I’ve seen a few comments regarding maintenance anomalies, but nothing suggesting the plane was a dangerous wreck. Anything that AH can use to point the finger?
Happy to confess my knowledge of air show arrangements is close to zip. Who even decides who gets to fly the planes and whether they are appropriate?
Bit of a ramble and it may have all been covered by the AAIB and or Coronor’s report?
Roman Rhodes said:
Happy to confess my knowledge of air show arrangements is close to zip. Who even decides who gets to fly the planes and whether they are appropriate?
Ultimately the CAA. Someone approved by the CAA will have to sign off the pilot as being qualified to fly a Hunter. Then a separate authorisation is required for that pilot to perform displays. It's safe to say this second bit may not be all that rigorous. There was a well publicised display crash of an ex RAF jet a few weeks before Shoreham when it appeared the pilot had only done 12 hours flying the previous 12 months. Maybe just about enough for sightseeing in a Cessna on sunny days, nowhere near enough to fly low level aeros on a swept wing jet. Dr Jekyll said:
Ultimately the CAA. Someone approved by the CAA will have to sign off the pilot as being qualified to fly a Hunter. Then a separate authorisation is required for that pilot to perform displays. It's safe to say this second bit may not be all that rigorous. There was a well publicised display crash of an ex RAF jet a few weeks before Shoreham when it appeared the pilot had only done 12 hours flying the previous 12 months. Maybe just about enough for sightseeing in a Cessna on sunny days, nowhere near enough to fly low level aeros on a swept wing jet.
I just hope that the various controls have already been tightened up significantly (as some on here have suggested to be the case). The more we all hear about various air displays the more it appears to have been incredibly lax for far too long..
Robertj21a said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Ultimately the CAA. Someone approved by the CAA will have to sign off the pilot as being qualified to fly a Hunter. Then a separate authorisation is required for that pilot to perform displays. It's safe to say this second bit may not be all that rigorous. There was a well publicised display crash of an ex RAF jet a few weeks before Shoreham when it appeared the pilot had only done 12 hours flying the previous 12 months. Maybe just about enough for sightseeing in a Cessna on sunny days, nowhere near enough to fly low level aeros on a swept wing jet.
I just hope that the various controls have already been tightened up significantly (as some on here have suggested to be the case). The more we all hear about various air displays the more it appears to have been incredibly lax for far too long..
eccles said:
There seems to have a few accidents involving vintage jets that afterwards when they go through the paperwork they have been found wanting. This occasion and the Thunder city lightning are two that readily spring to mind.
-http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/...
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-ca...
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 16th February 15:29
eccles said:
the Thunder city lightning are two that readily spring to mind.
They are enormously expensive things to operate, you either do it right or you shouldn't do it at all.TC started out doing in right in their early years of ops, but after the people that knew what to do left, for whatever reasons, things started to drift away. It wasn't just the ground element at fault, the pilot also failed to adhere to prescribed OP's as well.
Anyway, different country, different supervising authority.
aeropilot said:
eccles said:
the Thunder city lightning are two that readily spring to mind.
They are enormously expensive things to operate, you either do it right or you shouldn't do it at all.TC started out doing in right in their early years of ops, but after the people that knew what to do left, for whatever reasons, things started to drift away. It wasn't just the ground element at fault, the pilot also failed to adhere to prescribed OP's as well.
Anyway, different country, different supervising authority.
Thanks chaps - it was a bit of a tangent. I assume that within the realm of ‘vintage’ planes/displays there is some sort of network whereby AH would come up as the right person to be the pilot? If I was a sudden loadsamoney owner of a vintage plane (I’m not and not suggesting anyone was) do I have a responsibility to pick the right person to fly it? Maybe I’m thinking of it more like a car - I have to insure this valuable beast (I believe the owner does rather than the pilot) but a key part of that is who the ‘driver’ is? Maybe a crap analogy- but I recall that previously someone said it would be the owner’s insurance paying out rather than AH insurance?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff