Hunter crash at Shoreham air show

Good!

PH

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I consider all responsibility lies within the realm of those putting on the display, not those observing it.

Even if one takes a harsh view of those observing/photographing from outside (I don't), they were in a public place that remained open to the public. The onus was on the organisers and pilots to avoid the road, it is not reasonable to shift blame onto those who were there at the wrong moment.

My doubt, as a layman, is whether the deficiencies identified in the AAIB report, and which may well give rise to civil claims, were sufficiently severe as to be criminal, or so as to make this tragedy other than a dreadful accident.

Having driven past on the Saturday of the 2014 display, then attended on the Sunday, I will be mildly surprised if Shoreham reappears in similar form. That will be sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No need to apologise. I'd got tickets for Shoreham on the Sunday and I'd studied maps and sun compasses in an attempt to work out where the best position for the Vulcan would have been. The answer was on the far side of the runway from the crowd line and as that would have been impossible to achieve inside the show, I would have tried a position on the outside. Same with Duxford. The "naughty fields" ruled photographically speaking and I doubt any photographer worried about the consequences of an aircraft coming down in the wrong place. The same as we don't consider the consequences of an airliner coming in short and hitting the road you're on, as happened at Kegworth some years ago.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43494430

Tom

 

I personally don't think they should allow aerobatics at airshows like this, especially with vintage aircraft. There has been so many accidents over the years including pilots doing loops and then hitting the ground at the bottom of the loop. One Spitfire was destroyed like this and there is a video on youtube of it.
It is not the first time and it encourages them to show off. Any mistakes at low level and they have no height or time to recover. I saw one pilot killed myself at an airshow at Swanton Morley where they were flying under a limbo and then putting it lower. At one point one of the pilots pulled up and stalled and it crashed killing him. His wife and kids were in the crowd.

When I have been to airshows I am quite happy to see the vintage planes just fly past so you can see it fly. I don't want them to do dangerous moves which might go wrong. I am surprised the owners of such aircraft don't stop it themselves so their aircraft isn't damaged or over stressed.

 

Better ban all flying then. Plenty of fatal accidents over the years that have involved neither aerobatics nor airshows.
While we’re at it, let’s put a 30 mph limit on motor cycle racing. After all we don’t want encourage the riders to go fast and have accidents.

 

99 per cent of the time most airshows are safe to attend, i can remember the late Ray Hanna cutting the grass with MH434, but with anything, he did it with in the rules laid out, aerobatics are largely done in a safe manner, by very experienced pilots, many are former fast jet jockeys some former red arrow pilots, the best of the best you might say, What happened at Shoreham was several instances that should have never happened, the pilot , should because of past discipline problems with his display flying not have been piloting the Hunter, he should have been grounded, and then he should have known the flying characteristics of the aircraft he was to display, stall speed minimum hight etc , its sad that people lost their lives, but i blame the airshow organisers for not grounding Andy Hill. he should have not been flying that day, but to in effect say he killed those people is not true, he did not aim his aircraft at them, and crash it on them, it was a very sad serious accident one that should have been avoided, Planes can come down, often with serious consequences i hate to say it but i can foresee problems with charging him with manslaughter, whilst those effected will want justice for their lost, at what point does justice turn into vengence?

 

The pilot flew the plane, so he is responsible for what happened. End of. Whether that responsibility was criminal, and if so to what degree, will be for a court to judge.

As for the air show organisers, any blame that goes to them will be contributory at most in my eyes.

What matters is that it doesn’t happen again, and that the air show circuit clamps down on pilots who are either not appropriately qualified or whose behaviour raises concerns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As this is now sub judice we ought to be a bit careful as to what we say.

PH

 

yes but gung ho showing off must increase the risk of an accident severalfold , which was the point being made. I'm sure you wouldn't support heritage line drivers breaking the rules to put on a good show for the crowd.

 

In answer to your last sentence, all the time. There is a 76 year old man doing time now for making an error of judgment in misreading a motorway sign on a smart motorway and thinking the hard shoulder was open for traffic. He ploughed into a stranded vehicle which sadly resulted in fatalities. We all make mistakes and most of the time get away with it but I can't help thinking when I hear of such cases, there but for the grace of god.

 

I wonder what action will follow this case for future air shows ? Andy Hill had been cautioned by the organisers of Southport Air Show shortly before the Shoreham Air Show hence my question asto (a) what action was taken to alert Shoreham organisers of the fact (b) what action could / should Shoreham organisers have taken to deal with the matter and (c) what role should the CAA take in monitoring pilot capability ?

Whilst saddened by the death toll - especially of Graham, the railway photographer whose presence on steam charters was always welcome - there needs to be a stronger and more obvious legal framework to protect both pilots and aircraft let alone the safety of spectators.

 

Gung ho showing off is not part of a display pilot's routine. Things are practised over and over again until it becomes second nature. If a display director is unhappy with a planned routine he will not allow it to be part of his show. Sadly though things can go wrong sometimes with tragic results. I won't comment on Shoreham as it's sub judice but I've been to shows where pilots have pulled out of a manoeuvre because something's gone wrong or the flight director has called a halt for one reason or another. No pilot sets out to crash, kill him self or anyone else.

 

Keep up at the back. The CAA has already brought in more rules and are consulting further.
Airshows are easy targets for regulators. To apply the same rules to commercial aviation regarding flying over built up areas would result in the death of the airline industry.

 

I was responding to your reply to Toplight. There's absolutely no doubt that an accident is more likely in a plane doing aerobatics than one flying straight and level. To suggest banning all flying is just a bit silly

 

Really? Explain all the airline and general aviation crashes that have involved flying straight and level.

 

Indeed, but there is also absolutely no doubt that an accident is more likely in a plane flying straight and level than one sitting in a museum. So somewhere you have to form a judgement about the appropriate balance of benefit / risk. Grounding all vintage aircraft would clearly be safer than allowing them to fly - but a considerable loss of public benefit.

Tom

 

It should be evident that the existing framework is quite strong enough as Andy Hill is being prosecuted.

 

no need. It's self-evident that risk must increase with the complexity of the manouevre

 

But is it strong enough as there appears to have been no action taken after his reprimand at Southport; was that because Southport organisers had no need to take further action hence Shoreham organisers were unaware of any problems with any previous flying performance ? Whilst possibly extreme, my view is that action needs to happen before events to minimise accidents rather than after events once the damage has been done - especially if there has been previous incidents (e.g. Southport).