Shoreham air disaster

[Murray 17]

How it's taken all this time to tell us what we already knew I do not know.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

If you take a peek at the 435 full report and the thoroughness you might get some idea ....

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58b9247740f0b67ec80000fc/AAR_1-2017_G-BXFI.pdf

All complete jargon that can be summed up in 4 words. Too low, too slow .

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

An incredibly sad day it was....I hope the relatives of those that died are suitably informed about this report and the ongoing process

Understand they were given the report yesterday.......

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't believe pilots make errors all the time, they are trained, re-trained and re-trained all the time. Incidents are always a result of a catalogue of events but not always errors. The CAA produces a magazine each month for licensed aircraft personnel (engineers/pilots etc) called Human Factors. It highlights human intervention into what is a highly technical industry. It can be a fascinating read.

Over the years most accidents have been attributed to human error. Even the one that landed in the Hudson river, where bird strikes screwed both engines they did attempt to put an element of blame on the captain. The fact no one else managed to land it in the sim proved his skill. There is however one major factor in this, the interests of the main aircraft manufacturers. If the public lose confidence in a type of aircraft this has huge influence on all the industry, much easier to blame a pilot who's normally deceased or a "procedure" that requires updating. Meanwhile quietly in the background, a mandatory modification program is instigated to remedy an issue with the remaining aircraft of that type.

In this instance though the lack of paperwork (assessment) regulation whatever does not detract from the pilot's actions, he was after all supposedly very experienced.

Good points. Wasn't it the aircraft insurance company which tried to pin the Hudson landing on the pilot.....so they didn't have to shell out a for a new plane?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Good points. Wasn't it the aircraft insurance company which tried to pin the Hudson landing on the pilot.....so they didn't have to shell out a for a new plane?

Maybe but usually its the manufactures and the airlines. Not sure Rolls Royce got very good press from this. Issue is the engines are tested with frozen chickens fired into the inlet. However this is in a test rig and the chicken fired from a canon. Running an engine at full chat in a test rig is nowhere near the same as the engine being on the wing flying through the air and the associated stresses.

Frankly they have been getting away with it for years. Now most fans a composite material with a titanium leading edge strip and they tend to splinter.

 

[clippedgull]

Maybe but usually its the manufactures and the airlines. Not sure Rolls Royce got very good press from this.

If you are referring to the Hudson River plane, they weren't Rolls Royce engines, they were General Electric Aviation/Snecma

 

[swindonseagull]

Particularly astonishing since the ejector seat had some 'expired' parts. A quite extraordinary piece of 'luck'.

He did not eject he broke away in his seat with the cockpit.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

If you are referring to the Hudson River plane, they weren't Rolls Royce engines, they were General Electric Aviation/Snecma

almost immediately after I posted that I thought "you pillock" wrong engine however it still stands what I posted.

 

[swindonseagull]

It is astonishing the pilot was not required to submit his own risk assessment and flight plan to the organisers.

I have to do a Designer's Risk Assessment if I proposed a new window above ground floor in a construction project. A pilot can get in a plane and not tell anyone what he is planning to do? Really does beggar belief.

The display pilot of any aircraft can only fly a display that has been authorised by an airshow committee.its not just a jump in and do what you want type of display.
Obviously some pilots are better at the displays than others, they are trying to report that he was not sure what aircraft he was in as the height of the loop and speed were the same as if he were in a Jet Provost which is the other aircraft he was authorised to display.

Personally I think he cocked up ( possibly through arrogance) and should be charged.

 

[Nottseagull]

no one else managed to land it in the sim

What does that mean?

I'm not sure he was actually flying along the the line of the A27 at all. Some of the diagrams of the flight path suggest he did a fly by along the display line out over the A27 and then double back from over the fields/Adur. What does seem odd is that the manoeuvre (the loop) looks like it started just before crossing the A27 so that as he came out of the loop he would still be over the road!! Had he started the manoeuvre 30 metres later then the crash would probably have been after the plane had crossed the A27.

 

[OzMike]

Maybe acrobatic displays at airshows should be banned, seems they manage to f$$k them up on a regular basis.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Maybe acrobatic displays at airshows should be banned, seems they manage to f$$k them up on a regular basis.

Strictly speaking that isn't true. Eastbourne Airborne takes place every year without incident and so do many other airshows with aerobatic displays.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Strictly speaking that isn't true. Eastbourne Airborne takes place every year without incident and so do many other airshows with aerobatic displays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1353322/Air-display-pilot-dies-in-sea-crash.html

 

[GT49er]

"The AAIB also found the severity of the outcome of the crash was due to "an absence of provisions to mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing in an area outside the control of the organisers of the flying display"

How on earth are you supposed to "mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing"? Wherever it crashes it is going to make a bloody mess, both of the aircraft itself and of whatever it lands on.
All this stuff about risk assessments too - even if every reasonable risk assessment (and probably a few unreasonable ones too) had been carried out, there would be nothing to stop a pilot, once in the air, deciding to put in an extra flourish or two in his display, that wasn't included in the agreed list.

 

[Fungus]

How on earth are you supposed to "mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing"? Wherever it crashes it is going to make a bloody mess, both of the aircraft itself and of whatever it lands on.
All this stuff about risk assessments too - even if every reasonable risk assessment (and probably a few unreasonable ones too) had been carried out, there would be nothing to stop a pilot, once in the air, deciding to put in an extra flourish or two in his display, that wasn't included in the agreed list.

You mitigate the outcome by not having it perform over a major road.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Presumably once he had performed the extra flourishes his licence would be revoked!

How on earth are you supposed to "mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing"? Wherever it crashes it is going to make a bloody mess, both of the aircraft itself and of whatever it lands on.
All this stuff about risk assessments too - even if every reasonable risk assessment (and probably a few unreasonable ones too) had been carried out, there would be nothing to stop a pilot, once in the air, deciding to put in an extra flourish or two in his display, that wasn't included in the agreed list.

 

[Surf's Up]

Strictly speaking that isn't true. Eastbourne Airborne takes place every year without incident and so do many other airshows with aerobatic displays.

I've never been but doesn't the Eastbourne show take place totally over the sea? It seems pretty obvious that this was pilot error - as others have said, too low:too slow. For whatever reason the pilot seems to have completely miscalulated the amount of air he needed at the bottom of the loop to be able to complete the manoeuvre safely and the speed he needed to be travelling at. I assume the reason why there has'nt been a prosecution to date is 1) because the police were waiting on the outcome of this report, and 2) because the pilot is apparently suffering from total amnesia!!

 

[GT49er]

You mitigate the outcome by not having it perform over a major road.

But that's solely in the power of the pilot, not the organisers. They can say no, but once he is airborne they can do eff-all about it if he decides to do it anyway.

Presumably once he had performed the extra flourishes his licence would be revoked!

Absolutely. But, horse, stable door, closed and bolted figures largely in that! The organisers can only check he has a licence - it's not in their power or remit to check if he really ought to have one or not; that's the province of the statutory authority.

 

[GT49er]

I assume the reason why there has'nt been a prosecution to date is 1) because the police were waiting on the outcome of this report, and 2) because the pilot is apparently suffering from total amnesia!!

Just wondering, has anybody whose bad driving/driver error has caused a serious motorway crash successfully used this as a defence?

 

[sydney]

Completely agree. It seems there are two elements to this. The crash occurred because the pilot exited the manoeuvre at the wrong height and not with maximum thrust. He hadn't been trained in the exit maneouvre so once the error had occurred, a crash was a likely outcome. None of this suggests the possibility of 11 fatalities, 1 (which would be tragic enough) being very possible.

The severity of the incident seems to lie much more clearly in a hugely deficient planning process, not necessarily through neglect, but regulations not actually requiring it. So not only was the risk assessment inadequate, the CAA actually don't need to see any risk assessment before allowing a flying display to take place. This from the BBC beggars belief:

"The AAIB also found the severity of the outcome of the crash was due to "an absence of provisions to mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing in an area outside the control of the organisers of the flying display".
The report said the risk assessment "was not suitable and sufficient to manage the risks to the public", and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) did not require to see or approve risk assessments before issuing a permission to hold a flying display.
The report makes a series of safety recommendations including that airshow organisers must conduct suitable and sufficient risk assessments...."

in short ....they ****ed up.....eastbourne airshow holds its displays over the open water , if something goes wrong the plane and pilot get wet.......pulling a stunt like that in such close proximity to a major motorway is all very good , unless something goes wrong , which it unfortunately did.......so we will now have a barely intelligible outflowing of lawyer speak in an attempt to avoid litigation .........surely the pilot and the show had some sort of insurance......time to cough up ....no...??