Terrible Airshow Accident - Shoreham

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 mypyrex 22 Aug 2015

This looks nasty:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260

Not heard anything about the pilot but I wouldn't think it's looking good.
More here:
http://news.sky.com/story/1540055/several-dead-as-airshow-jet-crashes-on-ro...
Post edited at 16:27
 Trangia 22 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

That's awful! It's been such a beautiful day with clear blue skies temperatures nudging past 30 degrees C. A perfect day for an air show. What a tragedy.

I know that stretch of the A27 well.

When you are driving along busy road the last thing you would expect is a plane to crash onto you.

Stunned.
OP mypyrex 22 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:

Yes, as you say, quite awful. I too have been along the road a few times. I have also flown into Shoreham many times.

What saddens me about events like this is when all the armchair "experts" start expounding their theories as to what happened and what should be done or not be done. I've heard comments such as "airshows should be banned"; "these old aeroplanes should not be allowed to fly"; "they're probably not maintained properly"; blah, blah. I even heard somebody say today that "perhaps the pilot wasn't qualified".

Myself, I prefer to let the AAIB experts do their job - knowing that we have, in the UK, some of the best air crash investigators in the world.
4
 Tom Valentine 22 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

I agree in hoping that there's no kneejerk reaction to all this, but vintage fighters haven't been doing too well recently.
OP mypyrex 22 Aug 2015
Pilot, an ex-Harrier pilot, has incredibly survived.
 mountainbagger 22 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Horrible. I've witnessed two airshow disasters, both at Biggin Hill, where the occupants of the planes died and nobody else. This is just awful.
 balmybaldwin 22 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

So it seems, but critical unsurprisingly

Knew something was up by the number of ambos and fireengines that went through my village almost in convoy.
 neuromancer 22 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:


Having seen the crash in person, that '7' figure is very delicate.
 The New NickB 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

With no comment about how or why this happened, this is quite different from most air show deaths. Deaths are quite regular, but it is usually the pilot. Less regular are deaths to spectators, without being callous, these are both manageable and insurable risks. In this case, the crash killed members of the public on a major public road. I suspect, rightly or wrongly, this will have a major impact on both insurance and local authority licensing.
1
 Indy 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> Pilot, an ex-Harrier pilot, has incredibly survived.

Critical and fighting for his life. If he does pull through think of the guilt. So Sad.
 Indy 23 Aug 2015
In reply to The New NickB:
>the crash killed members of the public on a major public road.

What are the odds on that... hitting the road rather than all the fields etc.
Post edited at 08:12
 summo 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Perhaps recent years are just a statistical blip, but a study into older aircraft, older or less current pilots, air show performance pressure, flight corridors at air shows etc.. isn't going to do any harm.

It may not prevent any accidents in the future, but sometimes it is as good to rule out causal factors, as find them, in terms of maintaining or improving safety.
abseil 23 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

> ....a study into older aircraft, older or less current pilots....

I don't think older pilots are less competent.
 Trangia 23 Aug 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

I remember seeing the 1952 Farnborough Air Show disaster when a De Havilland 110 flown by John Derry broke up in a dive directly towards the crowd. The debris fell straight into the crowd killing both crew members and 29 spectators. It was horrific to watch.

As a result of that accident aircraft were banned from preforming manouvres directly over or towards the crowd at air shows, and as you say, the safety record so far as the public is concerned has been excellent up till now, although sadly pilots continue to be killed too often at these shows. Probably more display pilots now die than F1 Grand Prix drivers, another sport where as a result of the 1955 Le Mans crash which killed 82 people, mostly spectators, improved crowd safety precautions were introduced .

When you look at aerial photos of Shoreham airfied, it does appear to be a strange place to hold an airshow as the surrounds are heavily built up with the busy A27 and it's busy junctions just to the north. If aerial displays were moved further north to be over the relatively unpopulated Downs (although Lancing College is there), or south to be over the sea, they would probably be too far away to see much.

Eastbourne airshow is held a bit further to the east, but here the displays are over the sea and the view from the town is excellent. Sadly in 2000 former Red Arrows pilot Ted Girdler was killed when his L-29 Delphin crashed into the sea in front of the crowd.
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to abseil:

> I don't think older pilots are less competent.

Indeed. I knew many pilots, some of them aerobatic and display pilots, who were well past their prime.

I think one of the biggest problems with display flying is that the pilot is, perhaps subconsciously, aware that the crowd expects "value for money" and that, at such an event, no pilot is going to score points by performing aerobatics or other manoevres at 5000 feet when the audience want to see it done at 500 feet(or less!) Similarly routines are performed which subject aircraft to stresses that simply do not occur in normal flight and the line between a successful manoevre and structural failure can be very thin as can that between successful recovery from an aerobatic move and a collision with an object or the ground.
1
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:
> I remember seeing the 1952 Farnborough Air Show disaster when a De Havilland 110 flown by John Derry broke up in a dive directly towards the crowd. The debris fell straight into the crowd killing both crew members and 29 spectators. It was horrific to watch.

> As a result of that accident aircraft were banned from preforming manouvres directly over or towards the crowd at air shows, and as you say, the safety record so far as the public is concerned has been excellent up till now, although sadly pilots continue to be killed too often at these shows. Probably more display pilots now die than F1 Grand Prix drivers, another sport where as a result of the 1955 Le Mans crash which killed 82 people, mostly spectators, improved crowd safety precautions were introduced .

> When you look at aerial photos of Shoreham airfied, it does appear to be a strange place to hold an airshow as the surrounds are heavily built up with the busy A27 and it's busy junctions just to the north. If aerial displays were moved further north to be over the relatively unpopulated Downs (although Lancing College is there), or south to be over the sea, they would probably be too far away to see much.

> Eastbourne airshow is held a bit further to the east, but here the displays are over the sea and the view from the town is excellent. Sadly in 2000 former Red Arrows pilot Ted Girdler was killed when his L-29 Delphin crashed into the sea in front of the crowd.

Good points. The other problem with performing over the sea, particularly at Shoreham, would be that, at many points, the spectators would be looking into the sun and the performers would effectively become invisible.
Post edited at 09:18
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015

> Similarly routines are performed which subject aircraft to stresses that simply do not occur in normal flight and the line between a successful manoevre and structural failure can be very thin as can that between successful recovery from an aerobatic move and a collision with an object or the ground.

As an afterthought, I suppose a similar analogy could be applied to climbing. The line between completing a demanding route and killing oneself...
Post edited at 10:12
 summo 23 Aug 2015
In reply to abseil:

> I don't think older pilots are less competent.

Neither do I.

I think there are questions of currency, flying hours with specific aircraft type, reaction times and general health, ability to cope with high g forces....
 balmybaldwin 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

I see this morning they are warning that they may find more people in the wreckage
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
As somebody else said it is something equally terrible for the pilot to have to live with. Assuming he survives he too is going to need a lot of support.
 Indy 23 Aug 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Youtube video of the direct aftermath of the accident is now appearing..... looks utterly terrible.
 timjones 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> As somebody else said it is something equally terrible for the pilot to have to live with. Assuming he survives he too is going to need a lot of support.

That is going to be a tough one to reconcile if he does survive.

Imagine that a joyrider killed so many others in a crash whilst driving along the A27 with a margin for error as small as there was in this stunt. Would so many people be publically stating that they needed support?
6
 Mr Lopez 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> As somebody else said it is something equally terrible for the pilot to have to live with. Assuming he survives he too is going to need a lot of support.

In the form of a negligent manslaughter charge
24
 Trangia 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> In the form of a negligent manslaughter charge

What!!?

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is on the cards.
 owlart 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

If you have evidence that this accident was caused by negligence, then you should contact Sussex Police and submit your evidence to them. Otherwise, wait for the official report and don't make ignorant assumptions.
1
 radddogg 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

I blame it on ISIS
10
 Yanis Nayu 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

I'm surprised to be honest that these displays are held over populated areas and roads. It appears from what I've read that it's normal practice to avoid performing aerobatic stunts above the crowd; I'd say there is even more reason not to perform them above numbers of people unconnected to the event.

A terrible, terrible tragedy.
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> In the form of a negligent manslaughter charge

That is a totally stupid, ignorant comment which, unless you can substantiate it, I suggest you retract.
2
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> I'm surprised to be honest that these displays are held over populated areas and roads. It appears from what I've read that it's normal practice to avoid performing aerobatic stunts above the crowd; I'd say there is even more reason not to perform them above numbers of people unconnected to the event.

> A terrible, terrible tragedy.

I have, in the past, taken part in air shows albeit to drop display parachutists rather than performing aerobatics. There would always be a thorough briefing beforehand and if I remember correctly the specific instruction for aerobatics was that they were to be performed above and along the centreline of the active runway.
Post edited at 15:40
 Trangia 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:
Sadly the death toll appears to have risen to 11

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34034430
Post edited at 16:02
XXXX 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

The part of the A27 it hit is almost exactly along the centre line of the runway.
 Mr Lopez 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Ha, ha, ha! Knickers oin a twist?

Nothing to retract here, in fact i re-emphasise what i said. If the pilot survives i hope he gets charged for having killed 11 innocent people who were going about their own business when a plane doing low level aerobatics fell on top of them.

There really is no excuse for this sort of deaths happening
20
 wercat 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

And if it turns out to have been a FOD or maintenance problem? We used to have posters up at work about FOD, showing a pilot parachuting down while his plane heads towards a built up area. The idea being people on the ground might be responsible if they leave tools or debris in the airframe.
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

No, you are the only person with your knickers in a twist. I suggest that the least you do is to wait the AAIB findings. IF their report gives any credence to your mindlessly ignorant comment then I will make a point of apologising to you. In the mean time I believe you will be treated on here with the contempt you deserve. As somebody else said, if you have any evidence to support your comment then you should immediately contact the Sussex police or the AAIB.
3
 timjones 23 Aug 2015
In reply to wercat:

> And if it turns out to have been a FOD or maintenance problem? We used to have posters up at work about FOD, showing a pilot parachuting down while his plane heads towards a built up area. The idea being people on the ground might be responsible if they leave tools or debris in the airframe.

The elephant in the room is that someone chose to undertake and/or authorise that sort of flying at a low level in a busy, built up area. Surely there has to be an element of culpability by those that made that decision?

3
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:
YOU know ALL the circumstances surrounding this event I take it, you know exactly what happened to the aircraft or in the cockpit in the last few moments? You know about the briefings, preparations and safety checks that are all part of planning such an event as an airshow do you? As I have said before, we should await the publication of the official report.
Post edited at 16:52
1
 Brass Nipples 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Don't be so touchy, seems like a sore subject for you.

1
 Trangia 23 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:
I tend to agree. As I posted above, Shoreham seems an odd place to choose to hold an air show given the proximity of the A27 and it's busy junctions and the built up areas around it, whereas Eastbourne seems a far better venue with the displays taking place over the sea.

Having been to both air shows numerous times over the years, I thought this, from a simple layman's perspective, long before yesterday's tragedy occurred.

Having said that however there was someone from the CAA commenting about the tragedy this morning on TV who was saying that since the 1952 Farnborough crash when things were tightened up, there have been no fatalities involving people on the ground at airshows, and he felt that the chances of a road being hit by an aircraft in an air show was similar to the chances of being hit by lightening. Sadly that statistic was bucked yesterday.

IIRC correctly however, there have been a number of fatal incidents involving aircraft attempting landing and taking off, failing, and hitting traffic on adjoining roads.
Post edited at 17:11
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Orgsm:

> seems like a sore subject for you.
Not in the least. I don't like the knee jerk reactions that proliferate when this sort of thing happens any more than I like people making assumptions of culpability in the total absence of evidence.

 jkarran 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> There really is no excuse for this sort of deaths happening

Might it not be sensible to wait and see what the AAIB have to say, whether there really is an excuse before making such pronouncements. It's quite possible this is the tragic result of errors in judgement. It's also quite possible that this is the tragic result of a medical or technical problem.

jk
 timjones 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Why so defensive?

Do you need to know ALL the circumstances in order to question the wisdom of executing such a stunt over a major road?
 jkarran 23 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

> Do you need to know ALL the circumstances in order to question the wisdom of executing such a stunt over a major road?

It would probably be sensible, yes given we don't know how or why the aircraft came to be over that road let alone on it.
jk
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:
> Why so defensive?

> Do you need to know ALL the circumstances in order to question the wisdom of executing such a stunt over a major road?

The point of my comment was that none of us on this forum is in any way qualified to say what has happened, when it happened or why it happened. We are not in any position to question the pilot's wisdom. We do not know what margins of safety that the pilot had allowed himself and whether those margins were adversely affected by some event or circumstances over which the pilot had no control. From the limited video footage that I have seen it does indeed look as if the pilot has left himself insufficient height in which to recover from the manoeuvre. However I do not believe that such an experienced pilot would have deliberately left himself so little recovery altitude. Neither do WE know why he apparently left himself so little room. As I said, the only people who MIGHT be able to explain what happened and why are the AAIB.
Post edited at 20:06
 timjones 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> The point of my comment was that none of us on this forum is in any way qualified to say what has happened, when it happened or why it happened. We are not in any position to question the pilot's wisdom. We do not know what margins of safety that the pilot had allowed himself and whether those margins were adversely affected by some event or circumstances over which the pilot had no control. From the limited video footage that I have seen it does indeed look as if the pilot has left himself insufficient height in which to recover from the manoeuvre. However I do not believe that such an experienced pilot would have deliberately left himself so little recovery altitude. AsI said, the only people who MIGHT be able to explain what happened and why are the AAIB.

That is why I am not questioning anything other than the suitability of the venue. You only need to be able to read a map to spot the risks.
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

> That is why I am not questioning anything other than the suitability of the venue. You only need to be able to read a map to spot the risks.

Well I'm sure that if the investigators consider that the suitability of the venue is relevant then they will say so.
 wercat 23 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

I tend to agree. My comment was addressed to a post that was assuming the pilot to have been mainly to blame.
 mark s 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Ha, ha, ha! Knickers oin a twist?

> Nothing to retract here, in fact i re-emphasise what i said. If the pilot survives i hope he gets charged for having killed 11 innocent people who were going about their own business when a plane doing low level aerobatics fell on top of them.

> There really is no excuse for this sort of deaths happening

i dont know why this has so many dislikes

its the truth, the pilot did something wrong and f*cked up,11 people who shouldnt have,someone will pay
i dont know what insurance company will insure air shows after this
14
OP mypyrex 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mark s:
Are YOU going to provide the evidence to the official investigation. My God you and Mr. Loppy could save them a hell of a lot of time and effort with the expertise that you obviously have in air crash investigation.
Post edited at 20:58
4
 Mr Lopez 23 Aug 2015
In reply to jkarran:

> Might it not be sensible to wait and see what the AAIB have to say, whether there really is an excuse before making such pronouncements.

Thing is this

> It's quite possible this is the tragic result of errors in judgement.

and this

> It's also quite possible that this is the tragic result of a medical or technical problem.

Are one and the same.

The pilot took the decision to do a manouvre in such a way that meant that any misjudgement, mistake, or mechanical/structural problem had the possibility of having a few tons of metal and aviation fuel plowing through a busy road full of people in the way to see their families, going to a football match, or headed to a wedding. THAT is the mistake.

Now, if the AAIB report finds that the plane on its own volution performed a loop of sorts without pilot input, or that he was forced to perform the manouvre by, for example, his family being taken hostage, then i'd agree that he may be not fully responsible for what happened and will eat my hat.

But as it stands, an experienced pilot, out of free will, performed a manouvre at low level with such small margin of error that when 'something' happened the outcome was inevitable. What the 'something' is is splitting hairs. The cause of this tragedy is a massive error of judgement by performing that manouvre, at that height, at that location.
12
 Mr Lopez 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Here is the evidence.

Pilot performed a risky manouver. Pilot killed 11 people.

Case closed
17
 mark s 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

bloody hell YOU seem to be getting all hot under the collar. people died,someone has messed up and is in the shit.i do like how on here people scream provide links and evidence like they are of some superior intellect. people have died for lets face it, a few peoples enjoyment of watching an old plane doing stunts.
14
 mark s 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Here is the evidence.

> Pilot performed a risky manouver. Pilot killed 11 people.

> Case closed

pilot fcuked up - pilot guilty
plane fcuked up-pilot guilty
16
 Wsdconst 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mark s:

I'm with you two,11 people have died so someone's f*cked up somewhere.saying it's an accident doesn't bring back fathers,mothers and children who lost their lives driving down a road.the pilot signed up to take those risks on his life.the innocent people didn't.its a horrible thing to happen but someone somewhere is to blame.
14
 Trangia 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mark s:

What if the pilot commenced the loop over open countryside so as to avoid the road, passed out near the top or there was a mechanical malfunction or similar, plane started to fall out of control, went out of alignment and crashed onto the road?

I'm not suggesting that is what happened but just pointing out the sort of circumstances where it would be totally unreasonable to hold the pilot guilty.

It's utterly appalling that people have died, but your attitude and that of Lopez are like that of a lynch mob possessing just the bare facts without knowledge of the full background.

You are sounding like the arm chair critics who rush in to point the finger of blame after a climbing accident based on just press reports, which is all any of us have to go on here.

For goodness sake! People have died here, at least show some respect for all concerned and wait for the full reports from the AAI and coroner's reports, before pointing the finger at anyone.

Shame on you both.
1
 mark s 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:
Myself and Lopez have nothing to be ashamed about, its obvious from our posts the main concern is innocent people have died. Accidents shouldn't happen with stunt shows,control measures have gone wrong.
14
 FesteringSore 23 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Notwithstanding the deaths of those on the A27, your comment is quite abhorrent.
Post edited at 22:58
 radddogg 23 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Without wishing to add further blame to the pilot it does appear to be another case of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) with the pilot misinterpreting the altitude required to complete the manoeuvre.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article968.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sknyliv_air_show_disaster

There are many more like these.

Even if it turns out there was a loss of power the pilot is to blame for failing to factor contingency into the flight plan. Low level displays will always carry these risks.

I was at Fairford in 93 when this happened youtube.com/watch?v=azgoOxFmHEI&
 the sheep 23 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:
Exactly, we have a wonderful millatery display and air show in our village every year. We have had the majority of the old war planes over as well as the euro fighter and Vulcan. This year the Vulcan is back again and can't wait to see it fly over my house!
 FactorXXX 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Pilot performed a risky manouver. Pilot killed 11 people.

Pilot may or may not performed a 'risky manoeuvre' which resulted in numerous fatalities.
However, that is pretty much irrelevant, he was doing what he was paid for i.e. fly a plane in a dramatic fashion at an air show for the benefit of a paying audience. So, to categorically blame the pilot is probably ill founded.
As for the location of the event and its proximity to a road, etc. is a different matter and one which the investigation will undoubtedly question and possibly make suggestions as to future events.
Whether or not individuals and/or organisations are held accountable and therefore culpable remains to be seen and very much depends on the outcome of the investigation.

 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Risky manoeuvre?

I think the risk is allowing pilots who probably don't undergo the same medical checks as full time military fast jet pilots and don't fly the jets on a regular basis, or at least in simulators etc.. you then allow them to perform potentially risky manoeuvres over an urban environment where there is no margin for error.

Either he blacked out due to G and recovered at the bottom of the loop, too late. Or, he did not know how much vertical height he would need for the loop, or chances having enough vertical height.

Had there been some catastrophic mechanical failure, you would have expected more signs of avoiding measures or he would have ejected.

It's good there are already talks of improving safety at shows.
 Mr Lopez 24 Aug 2015
In reply to FesteringSore:

> Notwithstanding the deaths of those on the A27

Classy. You wanna tell that to their families?

4
 MG 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:
You're right. Let's ban airshows. Dangerous things. And driving - cars crash. And , and ,and
If you want such a boring, cotton wool world fine but most people dont. Occasionally that means people will get hurt and killed.
Post edited at 07:07
2
 radddogg 24 Aug 2015
In reply to MG:

Lets ban climbing too
2
 FactorXXX 24 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Lets ban climbing too

Well, they ban climbing in areas where it could be a danger to the public through falling rocks, etc.
Maybe in future, they'll reconsider having air shows in close proximity to roads?
1
 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to MG:

> You're right. Let's ban airshows. Dangerous things. And driving - cars crash. And , and ,and

Driving is fairly essential (avoiding a separate discussion). Watching old jets, perform risky tricks, flown by old pilots, over fairly urban areas essential? Especially when the deaths involved people who weren't even passing there because of the air of the show.
1
 Richard Smith 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

It's quite interesting reading some of the comments regarding this accident, I wonder how many of the people who make these comments are in involved in Aviation and know how Aviation operates? I noted one comments about medicals not being as ridged as the Military, the Pilot flies for British Airways so his medical is extremely tight. I would suggest waiting for the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) do there work and everyone stop speculating. The AAIB have a good head start, the Pilot will be able (with luck) shed some light on the accident.
aultguish 24 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

Can you provide evidence for your last assumptions please??
As a former commercial pilot, as of last month, I feel I'm qualified to comment on the medical side.
I was thoroughly examined every 6 months, every orifice, every fluid, ears, eyes, teeth, ECG, peak flow, hearing, lipid etc etc etc. I don't know what current military medical standards are but they must have extra body parts (extra pair of testicles possibly) to be more stringent than what my AME would put me through.
Imagine doing your driving test, every 6 months, on every type of vehicle that you drive....and also imagine your boss and mechanic constantly reviewing every drive that you do on a daily basis.
Flying isn't something you take lightly, there seems to be some suggestion of a gung-ho attitude....that's for Hollywood folks, not real life.
As for the accident, it could've been something as simple as a wrongly given QFE.
The wiki warriors can go google that one.
It could've been a flame out, it could've been a knackered cable, it could've been a bird. So no, it may not have been CFiT.
As for the pilot, I don't know him, I don't know his experience, I know nothing about him....but again, display pilots do a hell of a lot of training. To the guy who mentioned military pilots, again, don't assume, I've met some mil guys who didn't actually fly that much, I've met some who were stuck on desks for a period of time, I've met others who would be maxing out my duty hours and I was flying at maximum during my busiest years.
Something went wrong, whether they find it or not, I would like to hope that changes are made to the proximity side of things, with regards populated areas (towns, roads etc), there already are rules but it looks like they are flawed.
Just remember, you drive past two cars smashed up on the motorway, you haven't a clue what went on, just the same as none of us, anywhere, except possibly the pilot, know what happened.
 Yanis Nayu 24 Aug 2015
In reply to MG:

> You're right. Let's ban airshows. Dangerous things. And driving - cars crash. And , and ,and

> If you want such a boring, cotton wool world fine but most people dont. Occasionally that means people will get hurt and killed.

It's one thing accepting risk for one's own benefit; quite another accepting it on behalf of someone else, especially when you're talking about the risk of death for the benefit of somebody else enjoying something which is essentially frivolous. Not that I would want to see airshows banned, but I doubt if the tens of people grieving the loss of a loved one today will be too enamoured with other people's rights to impose risk on their friends and family members.
 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Richard Smith:
> It's quite interesting reading some of the comments regarding this accident, I wonder how many of the people who make these comments are in involved in Aviation and know how Aviation operates? I noted one comments about medicals not being as ridged as the Military, the Pilot flies for British Airways so his medical is extremely tight.

I think the recent events with the German airline proves that the links between civilian medical issue and being employed are no measure of physical or mental competency. There is no disclosure between the two.

Pilots give permission for aeromedical examiners/ flight surgeons/doctors, but not airlines, to access their medical records. The system is entirely reliant on self-declaration for the mental aspects.
Post edited at 08:06
 Trangia 24 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

> or he would have ejected.

Apparently "civilian" owned ex military fast jets don't have working ejector seats (according to one of the "experts" the BBC was interviewing yesterday). Only military jets in service have functioning ejector seats. The reason for this is that ejector seats are powered by explosives and whilst the military have the facilities and to keep and store explosives, ongoing regular maintenance is both specialist and very expensive, not to mention the law relating to explosives.

Having heard that, this seemed to be contradicted by the Assistant Chief Constable of Sussex in an interview this morning, who said that one of the problems facing the recovery team for the aircraft wreckage is the "unknown state of the ejector seat" given the fact that there is also still unused fuel in the wreckage.
 The New NickB 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Richard Smith:

He didn't do aerobatics in fast jets for BA though! Speaking as someone with no real knowledge of this, is a person licenced to do this sort of fast jet aerobatics and so it would seem odd to rely on a commercial airline medical.
1
aultguish 24 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

Then you'll also know that if an AME finds something, mental or physical, it's passed on to the CAA (in this country), who'll then make decisions, whilst your AME withholds your medical certificate, that your employer has to take a copy of, before you can fly again?

You are correct, in that, if I went to a civvi doctor, then yes, I can stop him from giving access to the authorities....but, I never saw my civvi doctor, it's the AME I would see and yes, whether I give permission or not, he sends it all to the CAA.....if I say no, he rips up medical certificate, no medical certificate, no fly.
 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to aultguish:
> As a former commercial pilot, as of last month, I feel I'm qualified to comment on the medical side.

Ok, with age and potential lost of fitness, do G's take more or less impact on your body? Did his medicals pass him fit to fly BA aircraft, it's not the same as the physical stresses of military jet performing for air shows.

> and also imagine your boss and mechanic constantly reviewing every drive that you do on a daily basis.
As an air show pilot who is actually reviewing his flying of the old military jet? In his day job it will be different of course.

> Flying isn't something you take lightly, there seems to be some suggestion of a gung-ho attitude....that's for Hollywood folks, not real life.
Sadly, it's not the case. Even in the military, plenty of crashes or incidents have been caused by show boating. Harrier crash just north of Oxford en-route to an airshow being a classic example. Also flown by an old and experience pilot who should have known better.

> As for the accident, it could've been something as simple as a wrongly given QFE.
possible, could be pilot error or mechanical/electric... but you would expect me action from the aircraft if he was alert in the final stages.

> It could've been a flame out, it could've been a knackered cable, it could've been a bird. So no, it may not have been CFiT.
No avoiding measure, no ejection... ?

> Something went wrong, whether they find it or not, I would like to hope that changes are made to the proximity side of things, with regards populated areas (towns, roads etc), there already are rules but it looks like they are flawed.
you can hope. Crowd visibility seems to take priority over risk management.

> Just remember, you drive past two cars smashed up on the motorway, you haven't a clue what went on, just the same as none of us, anywhere, except possibly the pilot, know what happened.
nothing wrong with surmising a little though. Everyone does it, they look at which way the cars were pointing etc..
Post edited at 08:19
aultguish 24 Aug 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

You do know that some military pilots come out of the military, looking for a commercial career and end up failing the medical because they don't meet the stringent requirements?
 Ridge 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mark s and Mr Lopez:

You forgot; "Won't someone think of the Children!“
aultguish 24 Aug 2015
I'll answer later on, I've got 40 horses shouting at me just now
 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to aultguish:

> Then you'll also know that if an AME finds something, mental or physical, it's passed on to the CAA (in this country),
I think I'm correct that the UK and Germany are the few countries in the EU that have this more stringent passing on of files, but it's clearly not perfect as the German pilot found a way through it.

 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:
> Apparently "civilian" owned ex military fast jets don't have working ejector seats (according to one of the "experts" the BBC was interviewing yesterday). Only military jets in service have functioning ejector seats. The reason for this is that ejector seats are powered by explosives and whilst the military have the facilities and to keep and store explosives, ongoing regular maintenance is both specialist and very expensive, not to mention the law relating to explosives.

Not really true. There is something called the 'Permit to Fly' a big CAA document full of rules for ex military aircraft.

They only need to pay an engineer to service the seat and the seat / explosives are stored just like any other explosives, according to their class. Non military people hold explosives for many things, demolition, mining etc..

It is of course possible the seat wasn't working for another reason, but they are incredibly reliable, with many measures to practically guarantee ejection, every time.
Post edited at 08:28
 Richard Smith 24 Aug 2015
In reply to The New NickB: Display Pilots have to be checked out by a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) examiner including the documentation for the medical. A Commercial Pilots medical is very strict and have regular check ups, if the medical examiner picks up anything slightly off the pilot is grounded.

OP mypyrex 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Richard Smith:

> It's quite interesting reading some of the comments regarding this accident, I wonder how many of the people who make these comments are in involved in Aviation and know how Aviation operates?
Very few I suspect.
> I noted one comments about medicals not being as ridged as the Military, the Pilot flies for British Airways so his medical is extremely tight.
I was about to pick up on that myself. Professional(airline) pilots as far as I remember have a medical every six months and includes ECGs etc.
> I would suggest waiting for the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) do there work and everyone stop speculating. The AAIB have a good head start, the Pilot will be able (with luck) shed some light on the accident.
Precisely the same message I've been trying to get across.

 Trangia 24 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:
Oh, thanks for that. The BBC does seem to trawl around a bit for it's "experts" as we have found at times when mountaineering accidents occur....
Post edited at 08:41
 The New NickB 24 Aug 2015
In reply to aultguish:
> You do know that some military pilots come out of the military, looking for a commercial career and end up failing the medical because they don't meet the stringent requirements?

Yes, but that doesn't answer my question. Do you know the answer?

Richard has answered it.
Post edited at 09:04
1
 balmybaldwin 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

Police now saying the toll may rise to 20 when they move the wreckage
 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> Precisely the same message I've been trying to get across.
I guess you are right, nobody on here ever speculates over mountain incidents, they always wait for the coroners report or HSE verdict.


 Mike Stretford 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> Precisely the same message I've been trying to get across.

You started ranting 3rd post down which probably precipitated comments.
1
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:
> I guess you are right, nobody on here ever speculates over mountain incidents, they always wait for the coroners report or HSE verdict.

I struggle to comprehend why anyone would start a thread on such an incident and then complain when it doesn't go the way they want.

If you don't think it should be discussed why highlight it?
Post edited at 11:10
OP mypyrex 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

> I struggle to comprehend why anyone would start a thread on such an incident and then complain when it doesn't go the way they want.

> If you don't think it should be discussed why highlight it?

I merely made the point that when such events occur there is inevitably an outpouring by armchair experts as to the causes and remedies almost before the real experts have even started their work. It was not a rant and my point was borne out by subsequent comments. I don't think that anywhere on this thread I have speculated as to the cause of this tragic accident; neither have I said that the pilot (or anybody else) was or was not to blame. I have merely tried to say that the professional investigators should be allowed to get on with their job and that other unqualified people should refrain from judgement until the report is published. I am sorry if some on here have not understood that or misinterpreted my comments.
3
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:
> I merely made the point that when such events occur there is inevitably an outpouring by armchair experts as to the causes and remedies almost before the real experts have even started their work. It was not a rant and my point was borne out by subsequent comments. I don't think that anywhere on this thread I have speculated as to the cause of this tragic accident; neither have I said that the pilot (or anybody else) was or was not to blame. I have merely tried to say that the professional investigators should be allowed to get on with their job and that other unqualified people should refrain from judgement until the report is published. I am sorry if some on here have not understood that or misinterpreted my comments.

You appear to have dodged my question.

If it shouldn't be discussed what was your motivation for starting a thread that merely highlighted something that was already all over the news?
Post edited at 12:22
1
OP mypyrex 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

> You appear to have dodged my question.

> If it shouldn't be discussed
By all means discuss it but do so in a non-judgemental manner rather than, as some have said here for example, "it was the pilot's fault".
 ByEek 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

> If it shouldn't be discussed what was your motivation for starting a threat that merely highlighted something that was already all over the news?

Why shouldn't it be discussed? It is a horrendous thing. People speculate. Talking about it is a way for people to come to terms with what has happened. Sure, they will be wrong and actual investigations will come to their own conclusions, but to state that things should not be discussed until the facts are identified is unrealistic and in many respects, completely missing the point.
 andy 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:
The people you started having a go at said nothing about what caused it, any speculation as to cause was later - initially people (including Tim) simply said that such events shouldn't be held where there's the slightest chance a plane could come down on a road or other people, which seems a pretty fair point to me.
Post edited at 12:17
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> By all means discuss it but do so in a non-judgemental manner rather than, as some have said here for example, "it was the pilot's fault".

So why have you complained about posts that only question the wisdom of the choice of venue?

What is it acceptable to discuss in your opinion?
OP mypyrex 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

> So why have you complained about posts that only question the wisdom of the choice of venue?

??
GriffonVulture 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:
> So why have you complained about posts that only question the wisdom of the choice of venue?

I'm not aware that he has done so. As far as I can see the only issue that myrex has had has been with those who tried to put the blame straight on the pilot.
Post edited at 12:44
aultguish 24 Aug 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

To answer your question, you first have to realise that there is only one type of medical if you want to fly commercially and that is the Class1.
It makes no distinction between what aircraft you fly, whether that be 777, helicopter or fast jet, whether you are flying wedding guests, doing loop the loop in a jet, air ambulance, or flying the cattle bus with 500 people on board....it is a stringent medical. When I first qualified, the medical actually tried to induce epileptic fits using strobe lights.
You had to go to Gatwick and were poked and prodded for 5 hours.
Read all my posts on this subject and maybe you will find your answer....as I've forgotten what it was and I've now got to go back out and get more kicks from the previously mentioned 40 equines
 chris_s 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> . I don't think that anywhere on this thread I have speculated as to the cause of this tragic accident

Take your point, but aren't you making a judgement yourself just by calling it a "tragic accident"? That's what everyone called the Glasgow bin lorry crash until they realised otherwise.

 FactorXXX 24 Aug 2015
In reply to chris_s:

Take your point, but aren't you making a judgement yourself just by calling it a "tragic accident"? That's what everyone called the Glasgow bin lorry crash until they realised otherwise.

Unless the driver did it deliberately, then it was a tragic accident.
Pan Ron 24 Aug 2015
In reply to aultguish:

That said, my last Class 1 felt like a reasonably simple affair. Urine, ECG, eyes, ears, a bit of prodding and coughing, perhaps more limited due to my relatively young age. Simply having a medical hasn't prevented seizures, heart attacks and general keeling over on short finals after a dodgy tuna burger. Though I would be surprised if it was a g-loc in this case. Outside air temp may be the more likely contributor - either via a stuffy cockpit, low thrust, or incorrect QNH.

All that said, I don't see what the fuss is about. Whether this was pilot error, negligence, whatever, if changes to airshow protocols are required it will be made, just like after Ramstein. Once the investigation has concluded in a year or so what needs doing will be done. Anything else right now is pure speculation and anything made of metal will always be a risk to people nearby. Sanitising airshows and aviation 100% will never be possible and it doesn't matter how far away from the general public maneouvers are performed, there will always be a risk. Hell, a 777 almost plowed through Hounslow a few years back yet we haven't shifted Heathrow's runway.
 chris_s 24 Aug 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

Not necessarily the case.

Say a driver was texting while driving and knocked and killed a cyclist. The driver didn't kill the cyclist deliberately, but was it a "tragic accident"?

Say a driver lied on every medical form he'd ever filled in over 30 years in order to keep their job as an HGV driver, despite having a declarable medical condition. And then that same medical condition causes him to pass out and lose control. Tragic accident?

The phrase "tragic accident" indicates to me an attitude of sh!t happens, no-one's to blame, let's move on. Sure, that is the case sometimes, but if it's too early to judge that the pilot was in some way culpable or negligible, then it's too early to judge that he wasn't.
 Trangia 24 Aug 2015
In reply to chris_s:

It's too early to make ANY judgement about the pilot and some of the earlier comments on this thread regarding his culpability are unbelievably insensitive at this time bearing in mind that he is in hospital fighting for his life and he has a family who are suffering too.

His family have just issued a very heartfelt statement

http://www.sussex.police.uk/whats-happening/latest/news-stories/2015/08/24/...
 Roadrunner5 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

"I think one of the biggest problems with display flying is that the pilot is, perhaps subconsciously, aware that the crowd expects "value for money" and that, at such an event, no pilot is going to score points by performing aerobatics or other manoevres at 5000 feet when the audience want to see it done at 500 feet(or less!) Similarly routines are performed which subject aircraft to stresses that simply do not occur in normal flight and the line between a successful manoevre and structural failure can be very thin as can that between successful recovery from an aerobatic move and a collision with an object or the ground. "

I think this is as critical as anyone elses comments..

Regarding whether it's an accident, an accident can be from a mistake, only if it was deliberate would it not be an accident.

"an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."

I hope for the pilots sake there was some sort of engine issue as it will be an awful thing to live with. It's incredible he survived without ejecting by some accounts.

It's so shocking because of the randomness of it all. If a rally car spins out and kills spectators on a corner, then those fans know the risk and sit in those spots for the thrill, which has associated risks.. this was just totally random.

 malk 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:
hot day (less lift), exit of loop over river/ woodland(descending currents) perhaps enhanced by updraught from the road full of standing traffic..i assume pilots would take account of all this esp when doing acrobatics?

blah blah..
Post edited at 15:05
 chris_s 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:

Exactly my point.
1
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

You're still dodging the question, if it's not appropriate to speculate then why did you feel that it was appropiate to open the thread withnthe rather poor taste line "This looks nasty"?

What purpose did you think your very first post was serving?
 Trangia 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:

> You're still dodging the question, if it's not appropriate to speculate then why did you feel that it was appropiate to open the thread withnthe rather poor taste line "This looks nasty"?

> What purpose did you think your very first post was serving?

I think you are hounding mypyrex here. I was one of the first to respond to his OP and at that time it was breaking news. His OP was the first I'd heard of it, and the crash did look nasty.
 FactorXXX 24 Aug 2015
In reply to chris_s:

Not necessarily the case.
Say a driver was texting while driving and knocked and killed a cyclist. The driver didn't kill the cyclist deliberately, but was it a "tragic accident"?
Say a driver lied on every medical form he'd ever filled in over 30 years in order to keep their job as an HGV driver, despite having a declarable medical condition. And then that same medical condition causes him to pass out and lose control. Tragic accident?


Yes, all of the above are accidents. Just because the outcome was tragic, doesn't stop them being accidents.


The phrase "tragic accident" indicates to me an attitude of sh!t happens, no-one's to blame, let's move on. Sure, that is the case sometimes, but if it's too early to judge that the pilot was in some way culpable or negligible, then it's too early to judge that he wasn't.

I very much doubt it will be anything but an accident. Whether the appropriate authorities decide that someone should be prosecuted for it is a different matter...
 DancingOnRock 24 Aug 2015
In reply to chris_s:

They're all accidents.

You probably need to use the definition everyone else uses.

'Easily preventable tragic accident' may be the term you're looking for.
 Tim Davies 24 Aug 2015
In reply to DancingOnRock:

It's almost impossible to pin the blame on one individual in most accidents. The regulator has a part to play, the airshow organiser, engineers, and of course the pilot himself.

Just blaming one individual rarely does anything to improve safety.

Google James Reason
 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to malk:

> hot day (less lift), exit of loop over river/ woodland(descending currents) perhaps enhanced by updraught from the road full of standing traffic..i assume pilots would take account of all this esp when doing acrobatics?

> blah blah..

with a 1000ft ceiling, it shouldn't come down to tree skimming either way.
 malk 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

wiki removes all doubt and calls it a crash. bbc still going daily mail with disaster..
 jkarran 24 Aug 2015
In reply to malk:

> hot day (less lift), exit of loop over river/ woodland(descending currents) perhaps enhanced by updraught from the road full of standing traffic..i assume pilots would take account of all this esp when doing acrobatics?

It doesn't look like strong thermal conditions in the video but you can't always tell. Even so, a strong British summer thermal, usually associated with big cumulus clouds by the time they're this strong has a vertical airspeed of about 10kts or 1000 feet per minute. Weather may prove to have contributed but I'd be astonished if it were brought down by strong sink.

jk

 malk 24 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:
what's a 1000ft ceiling?- presumably the safely margin rather than the actual height of the loop. what would his actual permitted ceiling have been?
Post edited at 16:22
 summo 24 Aug 2015
In reply to malk:

sorry, meant his minimum height, not max.
1
 Wsdconst 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> By all means discuss it but do so in a non-judgemental manner rather than, as some have said here for example, "it was the pilot's fault".

How do you discuss it in a non judgemental manner ? Having an opinion either way is judgemental.
 FreshSlate 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> Here is the evidence.

> Pilot performed a risky manouver. Pilot killed 11 people.

> Case closed

I'm fairly sure he neither chose the location nor choreographed the airshow you dimwit. Unless he was grossly negligent (e.g. drunk, cheated medical, suicidal etc.) then he's a victim of a terrible accident.

Even if the accident involves his own error rather than mechanical fault he wasn't responsible for assessing the risk to those people on that road.
Post edited at 17:27
aultguish 24 Aug 2015
In reply to David Martin:

Over 40, with some ops having to be flown single crew.....I would nearly cry when my AME got out the old rubber gloves every 6 months lol.
 Timmd 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Wsdconst:
> I'm with you two,11 people have died so someone's f*cked up somewhere.saying it's an accident doesn't bring back fathers,mothers and children who lost their lives driving down a road.the pilot signed up to take those risks on his life.the innocent people didn't.its a horrible thing to happen but someone somewhere is to blame.

It depends, if it's something mechanical which happened to the aircraft which is something new and not encountered before, then nobody is to blame, as nobody has been negligent.

Which is why we should wait for all the facts to emerge.
Post edited at 17:37
 Mr Lopez 24 Aug 2015
In reply to FreshSlate:

You are utterly and competely wrong in just about every single statement you made above. Thank you for your enlightening contribution though.

5
 FreshSlate 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> You are utterly and competely wrong in just about every single statement you made above. Thank you for your enlightening contribution though.

Englighten me.
1
GriffonVulture 24 Aug 2015
Perhaps the time has come to disband the AAIB. The UK seems to be quite well endowed with expert air crash investigators lurking on UKC.
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> It depends, if it's something mechanical which happened to the aircraft which is something new and not encountered before, then nobody is to blame, as nobody has been negligent.

> Which is why we should wait for all the facts to emerge.

If plans for the airshow involved pulling out of loops or steep dives with little margin for error and so close on a busy road then someone has failed to adequately assess the risk taking into account the possibility of mechanical failure or pilot error. The possibility that the crash may have been caused by "something new and not encountered before" does not absolve them of any responsibility for the end result
 Timmd 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:
It could have been that there ordinarily was a large margin for error, save for something new and not encountered before happening, don't you think?

The systems in place to do with flight safety in the UK are really really tight, which makes a crash like this very rare, the last time people on the ground were killed due to an airshow crash was in 1952.

Things are always obvious with hindsight, which is the perspective you're commenting from...
Post edited at 18:16
 ThunderCat 24 Aug 2015
In reply to ChocolateDrop:

> Perhaps the time has come to disband the AAIB. The UK seems to be quite well endowed with expert air crash investigators lurking on UKC.

I think you're right.

As someone who knows naff all about flying or aircraft in general, I was wondering if these are fitted with something along the lines of a flight data recorder / black box, or are those solely used on large, commercial passenger aircraft?

Sorry if it's been asked higher up, didn't fancy trawling through the arguments.
 Timmd 24 Aug 2015
In reply to ThunderCat:

The Hunter is too old to have a black box.
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> It could have been that there ordinarily was a large margin for error, save for something new and not encountered before happening, could it not?

> Things are always obvious with hindsight, which is the perspective you're commenting from...

Looking at a map of the area its very hard to see where that safety margin was.

From a Motorsport perspective you always have to consider where a car might end up and make adequate provisions to protect spectators and bystanders. The footage of this sad crash appears to show a woeful lack of consideration of where a crashed plane was likely to end up.
 Timmd 24 Aug 2015
In reply to timjones:
I guess there's more than one way of making things safe, with aircraft it's about checks and double checks, and not going beyond the limits of the aircraft, and pilots being medically passed as fit for flying, which is generally safe enough if you think of how many airliners fly over cities and populated areas, and other kinds of aircraft too.

Perhaps that's another system which could be adopted, to do with the equivalent of run off areas being in place.
Post edited at 18:34
1
 malk 24 Aug 2015
In reply to jkarran:
> It doesn't look like strong thermal conditions in the video but you can't always tell. Even so, a strong British summer thermal, usually associated with big cumulus clouds by the time they're this strong has a vertical airspeed of about 10kts or 1000 feet per minute. Weather may prove to have contributed but I'd be astonished if it were brought down by strong sink.

> jk

additional factors are the approach along the river and easterly wind in line with exit coming from higher ground-both sinking air..
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/E277/production/_85157975_shoreh...
Post edited at 18:45
 Roadrunner5 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

> Very few I suspect.

> I was about to pick up on that myself. Professional(airline) pilots as far as I remember have a medical every six months and includes ECGs etc.

> Precisely the same message I've been trying to get across.

whilst speculating yourself...
1
 chris_s 24 Aug 2015
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Nope. I'm not looking for "easily preventable tragic accident". How do we know it was easily preventable? There might have been hugely complex, multiple factors that led to this crash.

I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "that was no accident". Sometimes things we're tempted to call something an accident and it ends up something else entirely - which is why the police use ugly phrases like "road traffic collision". Fair enough, the word means different things to different people - a good argument for using a more neutral term.
GriffonVulture 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> whilst speculating yourself...

Er, about what?
 ThunderCat 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> The Hunter is too old to have a black box.

Gotcha. Had no idea if it had anything similar that would help the investigation.
 malk 24 Aug 2015
In reply to ChocolateDrop:

about possible lack of medical checks?
 FactorXXX 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

The inevitable restrictions have now been put in place: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383
 DancingOnRock 24 Aug 2015
In reply to chris_s:

Accident is general enough. Until someone can prove it was planned. At which point it'll be something else.
1
GriffonVulture 24 Aug 2015
In reply to malk:
As far as I can see Mypyrex's only comment about medical checks was here:

"> I noted one comments about medicals not being as ridged as the Military, the Pilot flies for British Airways so his medical is extremely tight.

I was about to pick up on that myself. Professional(airline) pilots as far as I remember have a medical every six months and includes ECGs etc."

That does not suggest to me that he was speculating about a lack of medical checks; rather he was pointing out how frequently they are carried out. Perhaps you are reading a different thread.
Post edited at 20:02
 mark s 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> I guess there's more than one way of making things safe, with aircraft it's about checks and double checks, and not going beyond the limits of the aircraft, and pilots being medically passed as fit for flying, which is generally safe enough if you think of how many airliners fly over cities and populated areas, and other kinds of aircraft too.

> Perhaps that's another system which could be adopted, to do with the equivalent of run off areas being in place.

or only flying over the sea,then if a pilot fcuks up its not going to involve the public
 Dave the Rave 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mark s:

> or only flying over the sea,then if a pilot fcuks up its not going to involve the public

Oi! I go kayaking in the sea!
 Wsdconst 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Timmd:

When things like this happen there's always going to be someone held accountable.while I agree it might not be the pilots fault, maybe it's the organisers,I m not pointing fingers although my comments may have come across like I was (15 dislikes) but I do think someone is to blame,maybe a rushed safety check,a faulty instrument ?,suppose we ll just have to wait for the facts.
 wercat 24 Aug 2015
In reply to mark s:
Have you ever seen the Red Arrows come shooting in from the sea to perform parts of their display?. What would happen if anything took control of one of their aircraft away from the pilot while it was still inbound towards the built up area where the crowds are?

It's safe if you assume the aircraft remains under pilot control and the pilot has capacity to control it.
Post edited at 21:40
 balmybaldwin 24 Aug 2015
In reply to wercat:
> Have you ever seen the Red Arrows come shooting in from the sea to perform parts of their display. What would happen if anything took control of one of their aircraft away from the pilot while it was still inbound towards the built up area where the crowds area?

Or on the mall...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/23/article-2148731-1340E977000005DC-...

Getting quite old those Hawk T1s....
Post edited at 21:43
1
 Indy 24 Aug 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The inevitable restrictions have now been put in place

Horrible knee jerk pandering to the stalls. Sad for sure BUT first fatalities at a UK airshow since the 1950's
 DancingOnRock 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Indy:

> Horrible knee jerk pandering to the stalls. Sad for sure BUT first fatalities at a UK airshow since the 1950's

AFAIK It's standard practice after any aircrash or serious fault on a plane.
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> I guess there's more than one way of making things safe, with aircraft it's about checks and double checks, and not going beyond the limits of the aircraft, and pilots being medically passed as fit for flying, which is generally safe enough if you think of how many airliners fly over cities and populated areas, and other kinds of aircraft too.

You can have all those checks in place, but you should still consider what will happen if something goes wrong.

> Perhaps that's another system which could be adopted, to do with the equivalent of run off areas being in place.

It seems to me that they went halfway there when they ruled that they shouldn't perform such stunts head on at the spectators. It's extraordinary that they didn't think of innocent passers by at the same time.
 timjones 24 Aug 2015
In reply to Indy:

> Horrible knee jerk pandering to the stalls. Sad for sure BUT first fatalities at a UK airshow since the 1950's

A strange decision. Something probably needed to be put in place whilst investigations were completed but I would have thought that a simple restriction on the type of aerobatics that older planes could undertake would have been more than sufficient.
 Mark Edwards 24 Aug 2015
I think the CAA’s re-action is a case of having to be seen to do something – no matter how idiotic it is, and thankfully it is a temporary measure at that. I can’t see that an air worthiness certificate is going to be any less stringent for a vintage plane than one fresh out of the factory. Followed through to a conclusion does this mean the end of the Red-Bull air race series? OK, so they are prop driven as opposed to jet, but is that really relevant. Accidents/Mechanical mal-functions happen whether they are doing acrobatics or flying in a straight line.
From looking at the footage I would say something went wrong with the aircraft as it was in the climb. It started of at a relatively low altitude (way to low for a loop) and then went into a ballistic climb. During the climb it then started to roll which to me suggested a stall, the pilot tried to recover but failed, as it didn’t seem to be under proper control from then on.

In reply to wercat:

You mean like the incident at Bournemouth in 2010, where a Red Arrows pilot blacked out and crashed half a mile from houses?

Which brings us to medical tests, and my understanding* is that fighter pilots have high-g tests (partly in response to Bomo, partly out of obvious need). I suspect commercial pilots aren't trained or tested for high-g tolerance.

I was watching an advert for the Red Bull air race at some racecourse a few weeks ago, and I wondered about how close the planes flew to obstacles, crowd and surroundings, considering the very high-g manoeuvres they pull. And what might happen in the event of collision, structural, mechanical or blackout.

* not an aviation medical expert, so am happy to be corrected.
 Roadrunner5 25 Aug 2015
In reply to ChocolateDrop:

> Er, about what?

"I think one of the biggest problems with display flying is that the pilot is, perhaps subconsciously, aware that the crowd expects "value for money" and that, at such an event, no pilot is going to score points by performing aerobatics or other manoevres at 5000 feet when the audience want to see it done at 500 feet(or less!) Similarly routines are performed which subject aircraft to stresses that simply do not occur in normal flight and the line between a successful manoevre and structural failure can be very thin as can that between successful recovery from an aerobatic move and a collision with an object or the ground. "

He speculated that the pilots subconsciously aware the crowd expects value for money and so carry out maneuvers at unsafe altitudes...
 DancingOnRock 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Subconsciously aware.

Now there's a great oxymoron.
2
 The New NickB 25 Aug 2015
In reply to ChocolateDrop:

Yet another identity Mypyrex?
In reply to timjones:

The pilot started the loop at an altitude that did not provide much margin for error. The experts will have to decide whether that margin was adequate or not.
 jkarran 25 Aug 2015
In reply to John Stainforth:

I'm not sure how people are coming to such firm conclusions that his start height was inappropriate or inadequate, it's very hard to judge from the video available, we don't know what height was planned, why nor whether the plan was followed. Vitally we also have no idea how fast he was travelling, thought he was traveling, planned to be traveling nor how fast he actually needed to be traveling.

As you say, we should wait for the AAIB report.
jk
Post edited at 10:07
 JimR 25 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

It would seem to me that the highest risk in performing aerial manouvres very close over a busy road is causing a road traffic accident by distracting drivers, for that reason alone I'd be very curious as to what risk assessment was actually carried out.
 FactorXXX 25 Aug 2015
In reply to JimR:

for that reason alone I'd be very curious as to what risk assessment was actually carried out.

Probably none, they just decided to have an airshow, scribbled down some details on a bit of paper and went for it...
 Dave Garnett 25 Aug 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Probably none, they just decided to have an airshow, scribbled down some details on a bit of paper and went for it...

Yes, because that's standard practice for public display.

Although, I did see an interview with a colleague of the pilot involved who explained how they planned every element of the display, how there were specific height checkpoints on the loop, with escape options at each step, and how experienced and skilled the pilot was, but what would he know?
 Andy Morley 25 Aug 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:
>> for that reason alone I'd be very curious as to what risk assessment was actually carried out.
> Probably none, they just decided to have an airshow, scribbled down some details on a bit of paper and went for it...

This was the case 70 years ago when one of the very first Gloucester Meteors had a very similar accident at a VE day air show near Rugby, though only the pilot was killed on that occasion. But there have been enough similar fatalities over the intervening decades to ensure that very rigorous safety procedures are put in place, as was explained in a radio interview this morning.

JimR and anyone else with a similar curiosity can probably use the Radio 4 'listen-again' service to hear that interview if they so chose, and if that technology is beyond them, I would imagine that the information is widely available elsewhere.

 wercat 25 Aug 2015
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I thought an oxymoron had to contain a contradiction?
 andy 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:
Thing is, the CAA have now stopped aerobatics over populated areas/roads - so that confirms that it was permitted previously. What people have found surprising is that it was permitted - but I (and I guess others) don't necessarily understand how likely it is for one of these stunts to go wrong. I suppose that's the point - it looks terribly dangerous and thrilling but maybe in reality it's not so the risk of a crash is very small. But the consequences are immense.
 wercat 25 Aug 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:
I suppose the risk entirely depends on the course an aircraft takes during aerobatics but loss of control could happen at any unlucky moment in which case anything could happen. The only way to remove risk would have no manouevre where the aircraft are heading directly towards a crowd or built up area.

You'd still get incidents like the Shap crash with all of the low flying in Cumbria and elsewhere - our friends delayed going out by a few minutes or they might have been on the bridge as it was hit. Their son was a approaching from the N on the A6 and was only about 200 yards from the bridge when it was hit - it happened right in front of his eyes, talk about distracting. I've been totally startled when driving in the Eden valley by aircraft suddenly appearing overhead as they cross the road at very low altitude, the sudden noise in the car made me think either I had an engine about to explode or someone had hit me. We accept these risks in what is after all a risky life.

I'd like to ask the Hawks on this thread what they would like done to the unfortunate pilot beyond the real grief he will probably have for the rest of his life?

That's the price we see for terrific displays from Typhoons, Chinooks, Apaches etc over our valley. I remember one amazing time that 3 pairs of aircraft arrived from different directions in the Wetheriggs area - they must have been surprised as they shot off like collision particles in a collider. IIRC it involved Tornados and Harriers.
Post edited at 13:20
 Timmd 25 Aug 2015
In reply to andy:
> I suppose that's the point - it looks terribly dangerous and thrilling but maybe in reality it's not so the risk of a crash is very small. But the consequences are immense.

Yes, the routine is usually rehearsed many times before the air display at a higher altitude before being brought down to a lower altitude, the part of human psychology which might make a pilot push the envelope during the actual display is well understood, too.
Post edited at 13:06
 summo 25 Aug 2015
In reply to wercat:

> I'd like to ask the Hawks on this thread what they would like done to the unfortunate pilot beyond the real grief he will probably have for the rest of his life?

If the incident was beyond his control, then it should be made very public. Ie. he flew according to the flight plan, serviceable aircraft, medically 100% fit etc...

If anything the bodies like the CAA and the show planners are 'potentially' more blame worthy for allowing aircraft to carry out such manoeuvres along what must be a fairly narrow flight corridor. It could be likened to racing the streets of Monaco(or any F1 circuit) without any roadside barriers, whilst every driver wishes to remain on the track, measures are put in place to protect those immediately around it, should something happen.
 Trangia 25 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

Aviation is inherently dangerous in that if you have lumps of metal and fuel flying above people there will always be a risk. All you can do is try to reduce that risk with strict controls which is what the CAA is constantly reviewing, but you will never eliminate it unless you ban flying.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of airshows every year and it's remarkable that in the 63 years since John Derry's crash at Farnborough these are the first non pilot/passenger fatalities from an air show. Many more people have been killed on the ground in this period from other non air show related incidents, and bits of aircraft falling from the sky. Eg Locherbie, the Glasgow pub crash, and IIRC the wife of Geoffrey de Havilland died a few decades ago when an aircraft landing at an airfield clipped her car as she was driving on a public road, I am sure there have been other incidents which I can't recall.

1
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:

> All you can do is try to reduce that risk with strict controls which is what the CAA is constantly reviewing, but you will never eliminate it unless you ban flying.

It does not appear that the CAA applied its own guidelines to the Shoreham airshow, and let it go ahead despite being over a congested area.
 FactorXXX 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Mike Stretford:

It does not appear that the CAA applied its own guidelines to the Shoreham airshow, and let it go ahead despite being over a congested area.

What do the guidelines stipulate?
 DancingOnRock 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:

Indeed. Mike Edwards of ELO was killed when a hay bale rolled down a hill and hit his car.

The world is a dangerous place.
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:
No flight below 1000ft over a congested area. The CAA guy was pressed on this on C4 news and wouldn't answer. He did admit it was a congested area, it does look it on a map.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20403%20Flying%20displays%20and%20special%...
Post edited at 15:08
 DancingOnRock 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I thought the plane was climbing and then stalled which meant that it was out of control, dropped below 1000ft and went off in the wrong direction.
 JimR 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

If the risk assessment thought it OK for a jet to perform a loop the loop immediately over a busy road then the risk assessor needs psychiatric help IMHO on two counts:

1) lowish probability of smashing into the road with high probable bad outcome if it did happen
2)High probability of RTA because of driver distraction

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to whether these aspects were covered in the interview you so frequently refer to, so I don't have to struggle with the technological complexity [irony] of listening to radio 4 on the web!
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2015
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I thought the plane was climbing and then stalled which meant that it was out of control, dropped below 1000ft and went off in the wrong direction.

Not commenting on the specifics of this incidents but the site assessment. It seems flight below 1000ft is necessary for an airshow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34038649

 jkarran 25 Aug 2015
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the narrow tarmac feature (aligned 18/36) with a central diamond shaped hard standing is is just a few meters to the north of the crash site? It's marked up with X's like a closed runway and looks too intact to be a long abandoned wartime remnant. Defunct microlight club perhaps?

jk
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I thought the plane was climbing and then stalled which meant that it was out of control, dropped below 1000ft and went off in the wrong direction.

That's what it certainly looked like. But we'll have to wait and see what the experts say. It certainly seemed odd just how long the pilot kept the plane in a vertical climb before starting to complete the manoeuvre - some eye witness accounts said the engines appeared to fail at that point. Also he started the loop very low didn't he?
 JimR 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Mike Stretford:

These distance (not height) rules would seem to indicate the plane had to be at least 230m away from the spectators (for their safety) but could be 0m away from the road.

If that interpretation of the rules is correct, then they certainly require looking at!
MarkJH 25 Aug 2015
In reply to jkarran:

> Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the narrow tarmac feature (aligned 18/36) with a central diamond shaped hard standing is is just a few meters to the north of the crash site? It's marked up with X's like a closed runway and looks too intact to be a long abandoned wartime remnant. Defunct microlight club perhaps?

Google suggests a test track for a local transport company.
http://www.shorehambysea.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2606

 jkarran 25 Aug 2015
In reply to MarkJH:

Cheers, I'd not have guessed that and I've no idea why I couldn't find the info with google.
jk
 summo 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:

> Aviation is inherently dangerous in that if you have lumps of metal and fuel flying above people there will always be a risk. All you can do is try to reduce that risk with strict controls which is what the CAA is constantly reviewing, but you will never eliminate it unless you ban flying.

Nope, aviation is actually much safer than many other forms of transport, not least because of rules and regs over where those bits of metal get to fly. Like single engined aircraft over London for example. You can remove a very large proportion of air show risk by implementing precisely the measures the CAA put in 2 days ago.

> ....., I am sure there have been other incidents which I can't recall.

I could list you a fair few more, many of which I've been to in a former life. Been to AAIB HQ a few times too. But, just because people have died in other accidents, doesn't mean it is acceptable to run a 'higher' risk flying routine next to urban habitation and main roads. Planning should be about reducing risk at specific sites, not justifying it because people have died elsewhere.

 DancingOnRock 25 Aug 2015
In reply to JimR:

I don't see why.

I've been to air shows. If you have a fly past the plane travels down the runway at a very low height parallel to the spectators. If anything goes wrong it should just continue and crash into the ground missing a few thousand people.


The likelihood of it hitting a road is very unlikely and it would be impossible to fly a plane and not cross any roads.

In the event of hitting a road you'd be unlucky to kill more than a handful of people.
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2015
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The likelihood of it hitting a road is very unlikely and it would be impossible to fly a plane and not cross any roads.

> In the event of hitting a road you'd be unlucky to kill more than a handful of people.

It is very possible to use a location which is not near a major road, in this case the South Coast Trunk Road. Roads are busy nowadays and it seems likely the airshow itself would cause traffic jams.
 FactorXXX 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Thanks for the link.
Everything's all conjecture and supposition at the moment though isn't it?
I'm pretty sure that a fairly clear picture will develop before the official findings, but probably still best to hold fire with the finger pointing for the time being.
(Not aimed directly at you).
 summo 25 Aug 2015
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> I've been to air shows. If you have a fly past the plane travels down the runway at a very low height parallel to the spectators. If anything goes wrong it should just continue and crash into the ground missing a few thousand people.

Plenty have big dayglo type markers in the middle of the flight line, so they can line up a long way out. But, depending what went wrong they could go either way. Or forwards and down, in which case you don't want any high risk areas in front.

> The likelihood of it hitting a road is very unlikely and it would be impossible to fly a plane and not cross any roads.

Of course, but if you cross them at height, then it is less distracting to traffic and if things go wrong there is some height to play with to avoid them. There were pockets of forest and fields, he could have aimed at had things gone wrong with more height and 'if' he had some level or any control.

Doing the loop where he did, he had absolutely nothing to play with, no margin of error at all. Arguable unprofessional or arrogant in an urban area.

> In the event of hitting a road you'd be unlucky to kill more than a handful of people.
I presume that's exactly what several families are thinking. Depending on what road you hit and time of day, you could easily incinerate a 100 people. Is that an acceptable 'handful' of people?
1
 DancingOnRock 25 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

Why would it be acceptable? That's a ridiculous comment.
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Thanks for the link.

> Everything's all conjecture and supposition at the moment though isn't it?

The specifics of this incident yes, but not suitability of the site. I thought it appropriate Cathy Newman pressed the CAA bloke in the C4 interview last night and his response was poor.
 FactorXXX 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I thought it appropriate Cathy Newman pressed the CAA bloke in the C4 interview last night and his response was poor.

Do you honestly think anyone in the CAA is going to say anything of substance at the moment?
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Do you honestly think anyone in the CAA is going to say anything of substance at the moment?

I think if he was going to clam up in the way he did to obvious questions he shouldn't have gone on, disrespectful in the circumstances.
 Wsdconst 25 Aug 2015
In reply to John Stainforth:

> The pilot started the loop at an altitude that did not provide much margin for error. The experts will have to decide whether that margin was adequate or not.

I would have thought it's pretty clear that the margin wasn't adequate.
 Wsdconst 25 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

> If the incident was beyond his control, then it should be made very public. Ie. he flew according to the flight plan, serviceable aircraft, medically 100% fit etc...

> If anything the bodies like the CAA and the show planners are 'potentially' more blame worthy for allowing aircraft to carry out such manoeuvres along what must be a fairly narrow flight corridor. It could be likened to racing the streets of Monaco(or any F1 circuit) without any roadside barriers, whilst every driver wishes to remain on the track, measures are put in place to protect those immediately around it, should something happen.

This is probably the best,well balanced comment I've read about this,well done
 Yanis Nayu 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:

> Aviation is inherently dangerous in that if you have lumps of metal and fuel flying above people there will always be a risk. All you can do is try to reduce that risk with strict controls which is what the CAA is constantly reviewing, but you will never eliminate it unless you ban flying.

> There are dozens, if not hundreds of airshows every year and it's remarkable that in the 63 years since John Derry's crash at Farnborough these are the first non pilot/passenger fatalities from an air show. Many more people have been killed on the ground in this period from other non air show related incidents, and bits of aircraft falling from the sky. Eg Locherbie, the Glasgow pub crash, and IIRC the wife of Geoffrey de Havilland died a few decades ago when an aircraft landing at an airfield clipped her car as she was driving on a public road, I am sure there have been other incidents which I can't recall.

The difference is that the social utility of airshow flying is much lower than that of regular aviation and carrying out aerobatic stunts is more dangerous than regular aviation. As a member of society, one is more amenable to the low probability of a harmful outcome from regular aviation, than the higher risk of a harmful outcome from airshow aviation. I can't imagine you'd be too happy if your grandchildren died as collateral to someone else's preferred form of entertainment. Look up "outrage factors in risk perception"

On face value, and without wishing to prejudge, there is at least a suspicion here that the organisers have provided little margin of safety given the proximity to the busy road.
 Yanis Nayu 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Wsdconst:

> I would have thought it's pretty clear that the margin wasn't adequate.

The question is whether that was foreseeable or not.
 Trangia 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>

> On face value, and without wishing to prejudge, there is at least a suspicion here that the organisers have provided little margin of safety given the proximity to the busy road.


Pretty well exactly what I've already said.
 Yanis Nayu 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Trangia:

> Pretty well exactly what I've already said.

Fair enough - it read to me more like you were saying that people had to be accepting of the risk, but sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick.
Pan Ron 25 Aug 2015
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Maybe something missed is that CAA, much like the police and other authorities, are very tight-lipped about any incident until it has been thoroughly investigated.

This is for good reason as aviation incidents tend to have a huge number of contributing factors and what witnesses think they saw ("The pilot was wrestling with controls"/"The aircraft looped"/"The engines sounded funny"/"He bravely tried to avoid the blind children's orphanage") is usually far from what actually happened. This may itself prejudice an investigation, lead to people being blamed and careers ruined when they may not need to be, and so on.

Perhaps in this modern era this slightly stuffy approach needs to be revised. But the aviation industry is notoriously and intentionally conservative. so I can't see it happening any time soon. In the meantime, as uncomfortable as it is, the CAA will say little that can help feed any desire for information. No real harm in debating the whys and wherefores on a non-aviation related message forum though.
 Andy Morley 25 Aug 2015
In reply to JimR:

> Perhaps you can enlighten us as to whether these aspects were covered in the interview you so frequently refer to, so I don't have to struggle with the technological complexity [irony] of listening to radio 4 on the web!

I referred to the interview once and once only, so I think your struggles may be wider and apply to more than just the technical complexities.

The interview described a process governing how the CAA guidelines were customised and tailored to suit individual air shows. It did not describe the detailed analysis that went on in that particular instance of the process.
 summo 25 Aug 2015
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Why would it be acceptable? That's a ridiculous comment.

of course it is not acceptable, you need to read the comment I was replying to, I even quoted it. (to help people who might leap to conclusion or not scroll up) I was being sarcastic towards the person(you) who suggested a handful of deaths was or is acceptable. In my eyes, at the moment, this was probably a totally avoidable incident. You were the one suggesting that planes crossing roads was unavoidable and would 'only' result in a handful of deaths if an accident happened.
 summo 25 Aug 2015
In reply to David Martin:

> This is for good reason as aviation incidents tend to have a huge number of contributing factors and what witnesses think they saw

There is probably a proper name for it an ism or ology, but people often have a strong desire to feel useful, that they helped, even if they actually saw or heard nothing relevant. To the point where they'll make things up and stretch the truth. Almost like they are saying what they want to believe, even if it goes against 100% corroborated evidence or information.

 Timmd 25 Aug 2015
In reply to David Martin:
> Maybe something missed is that CAA, much like the police and other authorities, are very tight-lipped about any incident until it has been thoroughly investigated.

> This is for good reason as aviation incidents tend to have a huge number of contributing factors and what witnesses think they saw ("The pilot was wrestling with controls"/"The aircraft looped"/"The engines sounded funny"/"He bravely tried to avoid the blind children's orphanage") is usually far from what actually happened. This may itself prejudice an investigation, lead to people being blamed and careers ruined when they may not need to be, and so on.

> Perhaps in this modern era this slightly stuffy approach needs to be revised. But the aviation industry is notoriously and intentionally conservative. so I can't see it happening any time soon. In the meantime, as uncomfortable as it is, the CAA will say little that can help feed any desire for information. No real harm in debating the whys and wherefores on a non-aviation related message forum though.

http://aerosociety.com/News/Publications/Aerospace

If conservative can mean risk averse, and to change without first thinking things through very thoroughly and from every possible angle before acting, that pretty much sums up the approach to safety that has come across to me growing up reading Aerospace magazine (which a relative is subscribed to, from personal interest and from needing to be a member of a society like this as part of their job).

I personally think the same measured and careful approach to saying anything about accidents has got to be a good thing too, in only giving out statements once all of the facts have been gathered.

I guess it comes from having to allow for human error and psychological quirks as well as having to make sure that complex machines on which people's lives depend are safe (there's systems in place in the airline industry to make sure the checks have been done right, to allow for human error), from there being a lot consider.

Anybody who is scared of flying should subscribe to Aerospace magazine.
Post edited at 21:47
 DancingOnRock 25 Aug 2015
In reply to summo:

I don't think it adds anything to the discussion.
 wercat 27 Aug 2015
In reply to mypyrex:

I see the Teesside show this weekend has been cancelled. Perhaps there has been a widespread acceptance by show organisers of what has been regarded as a small risk of a very serious incident and that is now being questioned.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...