Shoreham AAIB Report Published

[Dave Bran]

**LINK**

[Peter Miller]

Basically too slow, too low.

[Bill_B]

Posted by Peter Miller on 03/03/2017 14:33:09:

Basically too slow, too low.

I think that was determined early on Pete, but what amazes me is the very poor state of the compressor blades and stators. I.E., the surface corrosion (not damage due to the crash) that is quite apparent in the photos supplied by R-R.

[Rob Ashley]

Bill,

The corrosion you see is due to the post crash fire and not the condition of the blades as they would have been in flight - very common in post crash fires. The AAIB mention this too.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Another link

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There seems to be a lot of attention on the "lack of training" for the escape manouevre - inferring that the pilot would not have been able to perform it ...

He was an ex-RAF QFI and hugely experienced pilot - I would have thought that rolling out before the vertical would have been instinctive to most pilots with any experience of unusual attitudes. The whole point seems to be that he didn't, for whatever reason, recognise that he was outside the planned parameters so this seems to be a massive red herring that the press have seized on to sensationalise.

[Erfolg]

I feel for the pilot, the anguish that he will be feeling. I also recognise the pain and sympathise with the families of those who died and were injured as a consequence of the crash.

As for the crash, the media, they have called on a number of experts of all complexions, to try and make things understandable, to us lay people.

The report as reported does seem to be suggested that the engine was not generating as much thrust as would have been expected, how this is known, I have no clue. Yep, the pilot seemed to make some errors of judgements. Who has not, I am guessing there was an awful lot of information to take in during the manoeuvre, and some things were perhaps not as expected, some details missed. I feel for the man and everyone affected, with hindsight, it all looks so easy.

[Essjay]

One of the reports said the pilot was also qualified to display the Jet Provost, and that the flight envelope that the Hunter took was very similar to what the Provost would have taken eg. lower entry height, lower maximum height in the loop, and the Provost, using those parameters would have completed the manoeuvre safely.

One explanation put forward was that the pilot could have mixed up the flight capabilities of the two aircraft. Maybe we'll never know, as he has no recollection of what transpired.

[Geoff Jackson]

Everyone's forgetting that this pilot was criticised the year before for cavalier flying at the Southport airshow. Smoke and mirrors and I know the AAIB cant apportion blame but lets see what the coroner now reports at the inquest.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Keiran Arnold]

Tom, more likely that having received several major head impacts resulted in loss of memory. The report indicate the pilots helmet probably prevented fatal head injuries.

[Bill_B]

Posted by Geoff Jackson on 03/03/2017 23:04:22:

Everyone's forgetting that this pilot was criticised the year before for cavalier flying at the Southport airshow. Smoke and mirrors and I know the AAIB cant apportion blame but lets see what the coroner now reports at the inquest.

Geoff, I'm sure nobody is forgetting, but if he was deemed a serious liability he'd have been grounded without hesitation. He wasn't. Also, I don't like apportioning blame so easily when there are question marks over many issues.

[John Privett]

I know somebody who was trained on the JP by the Shoreham pilot, and I think Keiran is absolutely right. I personally have no doubt that the lack of memory of the crash flight is genuine.

[Jon H]

Posted by Bill_B on 04/03/2017 09:39:28:

Posted by Geoff Jackson on 03/03/2017 23:04:22:

Everyone's forgetting that this pilot was criticised the year before for cavalier flying at the Southport airshow. Smoke and mirrors and I know the AAIB cant apportion blame but lets see what the coroner now reports at the inquest.

Geoff, I'm sure nobody is forgetting, but if he was deemed a serious liability he'd have been grounded without hesitation. He wasn't. Also, I don't like apportioning blame so easily when there are question marks over many issues.

I tend to agree with Bill as I never actually heard where this nugget of information came from. who was doing the criticising, was he actually operating out of the envelope, was it investigated, if so was he even guilty and if so was he reprimanded, or was it another so called aviation expert on the bbc making a name for himself by exaggerating someone saying 'he flew over my house really low and I didn't llke it' to 'he almost hit my house it was really dangerous'? Remember too that the general public will probably not be very aviation savvy and may not be able to distinguish aerobatics from 'cavalier' flying.  

Without this information confirmed and backed up by hard facts its all hearsay but if this information is available it would be interesting to see.

Regarding the accident itself the report confirms pretty much what I, and I think everyone, thought when we watched it happen both in person and on subsequent videos and its far from the first time, or I suspect the last, that a pilot will make an error in judgement which will result in an accident. My only hope is that next time the changes made following this report are proportionate and reduce the chances of people being hurt.

Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 04/03/2017 11:00:32

[ChrisB]

Let's hope these findings both enable better Air show organisation...I.e. the display director has to consider all elements of the show including outside the airfield boundary in conjunction with the local police etc...and that the restrictions on classic jets is reduced, as ultimately this crash was as a direct result of pilot error,too low and too slow and inability of an ex RAF QFI to do basic manoeuvres is poor, unless he didnt realise what his speed and height was and were the instruments calibrated correctly. Can we therefore assume that not all Hunters are dangerous

[kc]

The lesson we should take from this for our own model flying is not to perform aerobatics over roads or people just in case anything goes wrong. If this plane or ours crashed in an empty field nobody would take much interest (normally) but just a few feet out over a road it's very different.......

....

[Rob Ashley]

Some very valid points of view here and some are relatable to model flying as KC states. I am personally not sold on the JP theory and mixing the types for the simple reason that each display pilot has a DA (Display Authority) that has been seen and authorized by CAA display authorizer. For the Military amongst us it is a Public DA. I have been on the aerobatic display circuit for a few years now and have displayed multiple types - each one has a different routine needing a sign-off. Every display pilot I know (many) including me (and even Andy Hill) have a check list or display sequence written down (usually on a kneeboard or in view in the cockpit) with min entry speeds and heights on them for each manoeuvre - these are unique to the aircraft you are flying. They are always there no matter how many times you have flown the routine.

Not for one minute could I honestly say I have not made a mistake and been at the low end of one of the parameters - but that is why we have such spd/height gates - they are calculated for a reason. Pushing one is not good but you have another in your favour, pushing both usually ends in catastrophe. I do not know Andy Hill and I am sure his memory loss is due to the crash, equally I am sure he did not anticipate the severity of the outcome, but sadly this accident was the outcome this time. Yes he could have rolled out at the top, but generally you are looking at the exit point above your head here (another reason to check ht/spd gate before entry) and not the instruments, as you are flying with visual references to ground/crowd lines/entry markers etc. I do not think instrument calibration would have been a factor either, given the height/spd of entry compared to those needed. I guess this is just my opinion.

To have an opinion is easy in hindsight as 'there but for the grace of god god I' and I have some close calls, display flying is dangerous and needs careful management. This is why I think Jon Harper said it best "My only hope is that next time the changes made following this report are proportionate and reduce the chances of people being hurt".

Rob

My thoughts are with the families of the victims and those who were injured.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I doubt the ones who lost family and had their lives ruined care much for the future of airshows. They want answers from the Coroner and those involved.

[Jonathan M]

Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 04/03/2017 00:23:39:

The pilot can't remember anything about the crash. Maybe he had a blackout like the Glasgow refuse truck driver.

I came off a skateboard aged 14 and, bare-headed, was knocked out and remained unconscious for a short while - a few minutes I believe. I had zero recollection at the time of the events surrounding the accident and four decades on I still don't know.

[J D 8]

Not guilty because of cognitive impairment due to G force.

But as I see it the decision's about the hight and speed to enter the manoeuver were done before it was begun.

After a road accident the driver say's he was cognivtive impaired.

Could this be because the driver had fallen asleep?

[Jon H]

It surprised me a bit when i heard about it. While part of me says we dont have all the facts and the court does, i still cant quite see the logic.

[Nigel R]

Not beyond reasonable doubt, for criminal conviction of manslaughter through negligence (edit: my interpretation).

I read that as meaning they didn't decide he was deliberately playing fast and loose with his routine.

Which is not to say a lesser charge might have stuck a bit easier, had prosecution gone that route.

 

 

Edited By Nigel R on 11/03/2019 16:44:52

[Peter Christy]

When sat on a jury, you are always told that you can't convict unless you are absolutely sure of the verdict.

Some years ago, I did jury service. The prosecution proved beyond all doubt one of two "villains" was responsible, but failed to call the one witness who could have definitively proved which one it was. We all felt that it was more likely the one who had turned Queen's evidence rather than the unfortunate in the dock, so we had to find "Not Guilty". (In fairness, the "victims" seemed to be just as bad as the "villains" were - they deserved each other!)

The prosecution couldn't understand why we hadn't convicted!

I suspect something similar here. I get the impression that the prosecution had gone for the most damning charge possible - but also the most difficult to prove conclusively. If they had gone for a lesser charge, the pilot would probably been convicted.

--

Pete

[Nigel R]

Also there is shared responsibility with the airframe owners (maintenance issues) and display organisers (routine, maneuver locations and heights) and type problems (engine command failures).

As you said it had to be conclusively shown that the pilot and only the pilot was responsible for the error; whilst deliberately ignoring various indications/instruments concurrent with proceeding with a maneuver known to be likely to fail.

Right end result, I think.

I can see why many people will not see it that way; there is no lynch mob justice.

But airshows will be different, in this country, because of this crash.