Erfolg Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Having read the link, it really seems that in some respects aircraft such as the Hunter will become more difficulty and expensive to operate, if at all. Does not provide any clues as to what went wrong. That is beyond that there was a delay in being able to safely inspect the aircraft after the accident and that rescue personal potentially were at additional risk from the ejection seat components. It may have been or not an issue that there potentially or there was an issue as to the sequencing and functional operation of the system. Non of which caused the accident. Reading the newspapers it does seem that issues were raised as to the flight status of the aircraft. Which could quite reasonably just be an issue of establishing facts, rather than finding a scapegoat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I read alot of these accident reports and they almost always find something in the paperwork that is not 100% correct. And irrespective of the condition of the ejector seat, the plane still hit the ground which is nothing to do with the issues discussed in the latest report. This report seems to be 'things we discovered along the way' as opposed to a reason for the crash itself. Most of their recommendations are quite logical and not particularly complicated so it should not be a show stopper for classic jets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 It seems the maintenance company could be in serious doggy do doos over the ejection seat cartridges though, and possibly the engine maintenance, and the CAA over its Permission to Fly certificate. Oooops! But if the ejection seat manufacturer had stated that it had ceased to provide support/equipment for non military use aircraft, how can they have offered a 52 week lead time on replacement cartridges? And what an extraordinarily long lead time at that. At this time, the cause of the crash is still purely speculation, but I'm surprised no info from the pilot has been made available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 The requirement for an operational ejector seat in swept wing ex military aircraft raises an interesting safety issue. Logical as far as pilot safety is concerned but its presence does raise the risk for any ground personnel in the case of an accident. With the seat manufacturer withdrawing technical support it does look as if the CAA will have to change its ruling on the use of ejector seats if this type of aircraft are to continue to fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerOC Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Posted by Steve Houghton 1 on 22/12/2015 15:15:43: At this time, the cause of the crash is still purely speculation, but I'm surprised no info from the pilot has been made available. Pilot was only available for interview for the first time last week. Was reported in some new reports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Bit on news yesterday about it, more word games seem to be going on, pilot/organisers not knowing flight routine, previous year pilot outside permitted area ? if so what did CAA do about it, they laboured the point yesterday. Organisers/pilots say they followed ALL legal requirements and the points being put forward where not a legal requirement at the time. All sounded very shabby to me squabbling in public, must have been lawyers scribbling away who may be representing those who lost family. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Reading the report it does seem to place quite a bit of the responsibility for the monitoring of air display safety (or the lack of it) at the door of the CAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 It also mentioned that the Hunter started its loop 300 feet below the specified height. That the pilot had not filed a flight plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I know the report is not complete yet, but in essence the whole accident boils down to pilot error, and there is not a regulation in the world that will prevent human beings from making mistakes. Some of the things in the report make a lot of sense (like having display routines pre arranged), but a great many of the proposals are ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 12/03/2016 11:01:06: I know the report is not complete yet, but in essence the whole accident boils down to pilot error, and there is not a regulation in the world that will prevent human beings from making mistakes. Some of the things in the report make a lot of sense (like having display routines pre arranged), but a great many of the proposals are ridiculous Routines prearranged sounds reasonable to me, but they said it wasn't a legal requirement at the time and an "expert" gave reasons why, yet the T.V used it as an example of how Shoreham had failed in it's duty ? if anyone's at fault it's those that set out the rules, not those who never followed non existent rules John p.s by at fault I'm referring to the alleged rule/non rule breach. Edited By john stones 1 on 12/03/2016 12:28:18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 "Those people died in an event which is equivalent to being struck by lightning. The pilot wasn't aiming at the road and there's a lot of territory where the road isn't. It will not be because this Hunter was too old. We have actually got footage right down to the point of impact. A wing didn't fall off. It's a misjudgement." - David Learmount, former pilot and RAF instructor I think that most of us will recognize the name David Learmount and associate him with an expert objective opinion found lacking in most newspaper coverage of this terrible crash. I do wonder however, that given the pilot has been interviewed some weeks ago, and by all accounts has physically recovered from his injuries, AFAIA ,he has been unable to offer an explanation as to the root cause of the crash. If he has, then I'd expect the full report to be clear on the facts - just odd that nothing has been forthcoming so far. Edited By Cuban8 on 12/03/2016 13:34:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 'he has been unable to offer an explanation as to the root cause of the crash.' "I ignored my altimeter and just went for it"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/03/2016 13:29:57: 'he has been unable to offer an explanation as to the root cause of the crash.' "I ignored my altimeter and just went for it"? Well, that is one explanation, but pilots on the airshow circuit these days don't strike me as hell for leather, 'ton-up boys'. No, there's more to it than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 None the less, all the evidence does seem to point towards pilot error, either starting that particular maneuver too low or just planning the routine badly and ending up out of position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J D 8 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 That old chestnut " THE PILOT DID NOT FILE A FLIGHT PLAN" always seems to get chucked in even if it has no relevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 12/03/2016 11:01:06: I know the report is not complete yet, but in essence the whole accident boils down to pilot error, and there is not a regulation in the world that will prevent human beings from making mistakes. Some of the things in the report make a lot of sense (like having display routines pre arranged), but a great many of the proposals are ridiculous My reading places no such view, poor planning, poor or inadequate risk assessment, poor assessment of competence to do designated role by all the parties involved seems to be the emerging story. And the proposals are not ridiculous. Many follow standard risk practice in the rest of the world, and indeed aviation requirements in other parts of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Given that the regulations as they are have resulted in no accidents of this type in over 50 years I would say that some of these proposals are an over reaction. Clearly if things can be tweaked then brilliant, but to totally rewrite the rulebook for a freak accident seems excessive when many of the new proposals are related to the crowd at the airshow. As I was at shoreham I can say with certainty that the crowd were never at risk and the regs did their job. Unfortunately however the aircraft came down in a place occupied by members of the public and this is the area that needs looking at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Jon, it seems to me to be no freak incident, but like most such incidents the end result of a string of failures. That interim report is shaping up to a damming indictment of the whole system. Trying to place the blame on the pilot and a bit of bad luck is a gross oversimplification. I'm sorry we are falling out over this, I also like air shows. I thought they were well organised and regulated. My faith has been misplaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 None of us know at this moment why the Hunter finished up where it did. There will almost certainly be a string of reasons forthcoming as to why the aeroplane actually crashed, and these will be addressed and acted upon in the hope of preventing a repeat. As to what can be done to have totally effective control over where an impact will occur, I'm not sure will be possible. Obvious precautions about crowd line distances, alignment of the display line, no fly areas etc are all in place and have been seen to work at many UK airshows where an incident has happened. However a cursory search of YouTube will find many terrible crashes that have taken place around the world where the regs are not so tight at public displays. The fact that people with no connection with the Shoreham Airshow were killed has focused close attention on the whole UK airshow scene, and I hesitate to wonder how events would be viewed, if by a twist of fortune, it was paying spectators that were involved only? Is it right that the public that live near an airfield, or use the adjoining roads be asked to run the same (albeit small) risk of injury as those of us who are regular paying attendees? I have a feeling that caution will prevail and we might have seen the end of many airshows where even a small risk to people outside the airfield perimeter is regarded as too high. Obviously, it depends on the type of aircraft being demonstrated and in what manner. The question I ask myself is "do I want to see nothing but light aircraft floating around in a circuit"? If not, then the only opportunity to see 'performance aircraft' may l be at large (and expensive) airshows such as IAT. Edited By Cuban8 on 13/03/2016 11:05:26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bran Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 I have to say that on an event where tight timing of pre and following displays is a given need, planning and knowledge of aircraft position at all stages of the display seems vital. Would it have stopped this incident? Probably not, not that is unless the pilot submitted a plan that was clearly iffy to the organisers. If you believe what is being said. I wasn't there. I wasn't there when the Hurricane went in there not long back I was there when the Swift glider accident occurred, which easily could have been far worse than it was. What "type" of accident/incident is acceptable? What do we list or not list? Only when non-participating people are killed? Shoreham (sorry, Brighton City Airport) is a very small tight site between hills and the sea, with two major extremely busy trunk roads, one of which gets queuing traffic almost across the runway threshold even when there is no show on, a railway on an embankment crossing the runway end, and plenty of adjacent housing, etc. Is it an appropriate site for aerobatic displays? Is it an appropriate site for an airfield at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 There is an issue with the concept of acceptable risk. Then the concept of risk reduction. The problem of acceptable risk is, to whom? The pilot, the spectators, the general public etc. When considering nuclear energy, a section of the population object to the risk as they do not want the risk, under any circumstances. Whereas the same risk when born by coal miners was acceptable, as it did not affect them directly. As for risk management, the total risk can be removed by not having airshows where it is for the amusement of the public etc. Possibly part of the problem is that in the 1920s a aircraft crashing undertaking some form of demonstration, involved generally one, maybe two people. In the jet age the consequences in some instances of an aircraft invlove far more. From Farnborough, Ramstein now this accident. I do have the feel there is a general, casting about as to its nor my fault, some one should have done this. The accident was probably an error of judgement. The outcome, maybe sad, is that regulations for this type of flying will be tightened up. That also is part of the finger pointing. Many of our airports in the UK in this age are almost certainly far to close to areas of population, which probably points to airshows will not be suitable at this type of location. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 End of story arrived via the coroner today. Worth a read of the coroners report. And a scan of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64040265 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.