We may have just seen the end of the majority of air shows as we know them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383
We may have, at least "until further notice"...but we'll have to see the CAA's "full review of civil air display safety" comes up with (link).Originally Posted by Corporalsparrow
Is there a definition of vintage as applied to jet aircraft? And why only vintage jets?
I am going to the Scottish air show at Ayr in a couple of weeks. The flying is mostly done over water, will be interesting to see what if any restrictions are in place
Interesting that they have grounded all Hawker Hunters. Do they think something broke, or is it normal routine after such an incident?
I think its normal until they establish the cause of the crash.
I wouldn't be surprised if this tragedy marked a serious change in how these air shows operate. I would imagine from now on, stunts and the like will be performed well away form any crowds / infrastructure.
There was an emotional and very well done tribute to those who died at the Amex football stadium today. The Hull City fans played their part alongside those supporting Brighton.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/1371...reham/?ref=mac
Link:
More than a year after the Shoreham Airshow disaster, it has been announced that a pre-inquest hearing will be held in Horsham on 21 November.
No evidence will be heard, but West Sussex senior coroner Penelope Schofield hopes to set a date for the inquests into the deaths.
Meanwhile: Unconscious F-16 pilot saved by automated systems.
Wow. One pilot there owes his life to modern tech.
The report has finally been issued https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/airc...22-august-2015
BBC report up as well http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-39105085
Pilot Error listed as the main cause, which was pretty obvious at the time, i guess the next step is with the CPS.
From the Summary on page 2 of the report:
The aircraft was carrying out a manoeuvre involving both a pitching and rolling component, which commenced from a height lower than the pilot’s authorised minimum for aerobatics, at an airspeed below his stated minimum, and proceeded with less than maximum thrust. This resulted in the aircraft achieving a height at the top of the manoeuvre less than the minimum required to complete it safely, at a speed that was slower than normal.
Although it was possible to abort the manoeuvre safely at this point, it appeared the pilot did not recognise that the aircraft was too low to complete the downward half of the manoeuvre. An analysis of human performance identified several credible explanations for this, including: not reading the altimeter due to workload, distraction or visual limitations such as contrast or glare; misreading the altimeter due to its presentation of height information; or incorrectly recalling the minimum height required at the apex.
The investigation found that the guidance concerning the minimum height at which aerobatic manoeuvres may be commenced is not applied consistently and may be unclear.
There was evidence that other pilots do not always check or perceive correctly that the required height has been achieved at the apex of manoeuvres.
Training and assessment procedures in place at the time of the accident did not prepare the pilot fully for the conduct of relevant escape manoeuvres in the Hunter.
Last edited by PickleB; 3rd March 2017 at 16:59.
He should be jailed. Completely irresponsible and totally avoidable.
You have to wonder why old, fast jets like this were even allowed to perform such manoeuvres, absolutely nothing gained in forcing a 50-60 year old plane with no modern warning equipment (happy to be informed otherwise if wrong) to have done this.
Agree. I think however this was part of the problem is as much as the organisers hadn't agreed a demonstration "routine" with the pilot and were therefore unaware of what he was going to attempt.
I haven't seen it mentioned recently, but I *think* I recall reading shortly after the incident occurred that the pilot had previously been cautioned/sanctioned in connection with another flying demonstration event.
Yes, cheers Pickle, that was it.
BBC Shoreham air crash trial...latest:
...Jurors were told Andy Hill's Hawker Hunter jet "disintegrated" upon impact, creating a "massive fireball", when it hit the ground in August 2015.
The vintage aircraft was in "excellent working order", the Old Bailey heard, and "serious negligence" was to blame.
Mr Hill, 54, denies 11 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence...
Talk about misleading headlines, what are the BBC on, they keep doing it, "known Risk Taker" just because some bloke says so, he's been found guilty of nothing yet.
I believe, that's why they put it (and 'negligent' as well) in quotes, albeit single quotes, as something someone has said.
They keep doing it with headlines, when you then read it, the story is something completely different, Maybe they are trying to compete with the Daily Mail.
It does seem that the Pilot deserves all he gets though.
Yep, this makes death by dangerous driving appear trivial
And they could equally have left the quotes out given he had previously breached safety requirements at an airshow and been warned about it!
I still can't believe he survived the crash. How could anybody walk away from that inferno?
The aircraft hit the ground tail first
This caused the cockpit to break off from the fuselage just behind the seats throwing the cockpit away from the explosion.
He should go to prison for a very long time
It was complete negligence on his part IMO
As I understand it he entered the loop too low, too slow and continued to pull through when he should have aborted at the top of the loop.
He also panicked (understandably) when he realised he was not going to make it by pulling the stick back hard causing the aircraft to stall. You can see in the video of the crash that he increased his angle of attack just before impact.
Not guilty...Airshow pilot acquitted over crash deaths: The pilot of a jet which crashed at the Shoreham Airshow killing 11 men has been found not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence...
Didn't follow the case but thought it was said that the plane was not properly maintained and the manoeuvres were not safe - or not carried out safely.
A horrific disaster for the people killed and their families, that's for sure.
Last edited by David_D; 8th March 2019 at 16:03.
The AIB found the cause to be pilot error, aircraft too low and slow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m thinking Andy Hill must know the right people.
I suspect you are right.
He has to live with the fact he killed all those people.
I have been down in shoreham for a few hours today, the news isn't being taken very well locally.
I’m quite surprised with the verdict given the AIB’s findings beforehand .. I was there on the day, my cycling club had a run to Brighton and I left them to see the air show..
I had only been there 10 mins before the crash.. I did not see it hit the ground - I was about half a mile away and fiddling with my MP3 player as it hit. I did see it on its climb and barely two minutes later I looked up to see the massive fireball and plume of smoke..
I hope he was well insured and that the families can at least be financially compensated though that will be cold comfort for them ...
The jury?
I don’t know mate.Its all very strange.A mans actions get 11 people killed and doesn’t even get found guilty of man slaughter.
I guess the jury have to look at “intent”? Yes He was reckless but is He actually guilty of any more than that?
Last edited by lew07; 8th March 2019 at 21:05.
Whilst I understand the relatives angst at the outcome, the jury have decided based on evidence presented (not sure if all of this is/was public domain).
They have the right to pursue a civil action of course but the cost is probably prohibitive - particularly as a jury have found him innocent.
If somebody 'blacked out' or was incapacitated and caused a similar car crash are they guilty of manslaughter?
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I thought the AIB determined that there was no ‘blacking out’ and there was cockpit cameras showing he was awake / conscious throughout ?
Dunno?
The jury seemed to believe the 'incapacitated' comment and surely the AIB stuff was submitted as evidence?.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
The c*** was showing off and got it wrong. The verdict of that whitewash is a f***** disgrace. He killed 11 people.
F.T.F.A.
I'll repeat that. He killed 11 people.
I am struggling to disagree Bob - the telling bit of the footage for me was the bit showing the airframe vibration in the bottom part of the descent. Clearly got it wrong and should have rolled out at the top of the loop due to it being too shallow.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I think the jury could not be sure of the charge ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ which is quite a high benchmark or threshold..
And this comment shows why we have a legal system and not mob rule. All air displays are, to an extent, 'showing off' in the eyes of the public but normally conducted within safe parameters from the pilot's and the supervisory chain's perspective. On this occasion it went wrong with an error of judgement/lack of currency etc. that had catastrophic consequences. If you want to eliminate accidents like this you'd have to ban air displays, in the same way that if you want to prevent all road accidents you'd have to stop all driving. Whilst the latter is a necessity in the modern economy, the former isn't but what a dull World without such things that bring enjoyment to millions every year. I say this having flown displays in '93 and '94 - thankfully without incident. Some of my friends and colleagues have died during displays, though thankfully they didn't result in the deaths of bystanders.
Gary Hart was judged to have fallen asleep, and it was shown that he had been awake most of the previous night.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
Gary Hart got sentenced, based on the outcome, rather than the cause. In addition - there was no (in my opinion) any allowance for the barrier - simply not being capable of preventing his car/trailer landing on the railway.
The barrier should have been positioned and of the capability - to prevent a lorry, from going down the embankment. I bet it is now!
Shoreham by sea is exactly that, by the sea.... with an airport 500 yards from the English Channel. Why on earth is the air based show not held out at sea, much like bournemouth?
I haven't seen that 'airframe vibration' but it's hardly surprising as he realised he was in trouble and instinctively pulled back on the column inducing buffet and a stall. This is irrelevant as the fate of the manoeuvre was determined about 10 seconds earlier. I'm not defending his actions/performance but 'airframe vibration' at the 'bottom part of the descent' is not relevant; it's a symptom not a cause.
Last edited by Skier; 9th March 2019 at 11:37.
Which was my point TBH.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
This is probably the case. Especially supporting the 'blacking out' mitigation.
But it remains that he knowingly entered the loop too low, and too slow. Presumably he wasn't incapacitated then - and if he was then he shouldn't have continued the manoeuvre.
The AIB report is quite a chilling read, not only re the pilot's actions, but also the aircraft and the show organisers.
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/airc...22-august-2015
We have no idea of the deliberations that the jury went through, what evidence they had to examine, or how they were minded to approach the issues at hand and return the verdict they did.
It stinks though. And I feel very sad for those whose lives have been destroyed by the whole, imo avoidable, tragedy.
See link for:
Jurors were told that the AAIB’s report into the crash would not form part of the prosecution’s evidence and should be disregarded.
Seems a strange direction /instruction to them to ignore expert inquiry findings ...
I totally agree ... will have a read of that report - thanks for the link..
C’mon he was a trained pilot for goodness sake. Anyone playing msflight sim might be tempted to pull back on the stick but it certainly wouldn’t be instinct to him. Wasn’t he a BA captain at some point on heavies? They don’t give those posts away to people who pull back on the stick in a crisis.
If anyone wants the book on this it’s called “Stick and Rudder” and this bit is on page 1.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote