Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

[Boac]

Likewise. Would prefer to wait for report before further comment.

[Boac]

Local news here from the Council is that the pre-inquest review (due 17/3) is now 'postponed' (presumably insufficient time for the AAIB report to be 'digested') and we await a new date.

[Ex-Ascot]

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraf ... ugust-2015

[Boac]

Next move is the Police Investigation and the Inquest.

The report concludes that an escape manoeuvre should have been flown at the apex rather than a pull-through. I heard the BBC today say he was '300 feet low' when in fact he was at least 500 feet low.

Forecast is loads more drivel on TOP and the media, I'm afraid.

[Ex-Ascot]

Boac, I agree.

You are the most qualified on this forum to comment. i haven't read the full report yet but I am not experienced in this type of aviation. Spills the G&T and all that.

[Boac]

Spills the G&T and all that.

- not if you keep the 'g' on - ask Bob Hoover

[Boac]

I see the TOP 'defence team' have started on a reported RPM 'anomaly' during the pull-up, ignoring the 'elephant in the room' in low-level aeros which is NOT what happens on the way up but what you do when you GET wherever you arrive. There are many variables in a loop, and one is the 'g' pulled on entry which affects the shape of the loop and energy levels. I must admit my thoughts on first seeing the crash video were that the pull-up 'looked' a little odd to me, but that is totally subjective and angles can be so confusing.

A 'hard' entry pull washes off speed quicker and reduces the apex.

There is some suggestion that the 'gate' figures achieved (2600' and 100kts) would have been fine for a pull-through in his last display 'steed', a Jet Provost. An interesting thought.

[603DX]

Forecast is loads more drivel on TOP and the media, I'm afraid.

I'm not qualified at all to comment on today's factual report, but can only agree with Boac's forecast above.

I was at the Biggin Hill air show in September 1980 when Don Bullock tried to roll the A-26 Invader above the adjacent valley. Thousands of us saw it happen before our eyes, there were many graphic pictures and several videos, and the news media went into a frenzy of mis-information and conjecture because of the very public location and the fact that six passengers were on board, compounding the horror. Sadly, it's almost inevitable in such dramatic circumstances.

[Ex-Ascot]

Spills the G&T and all that.

- not if you keep the 'g' on - ask Bob Hoover

For those of you unfamiliar with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9pvG_ZSnCc

Boac could do it but it would have been all over the flight deck if I had tried it.

[Boac]

Boac could do it

- but he wouldn't offer any guarantees!

[Cacophonix]

The report takes quite some reading. See link kindly posted above.

The associated youtube video is interesting as well...

[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u20-oh5Wblw[/bbvideo]

This bit was most unexpected.

The investigation found that defects and exceedences of the aircraft’s operational limits had not been reported to the maintenance organisation, and mandatory requirements of its Airworthiness Approval Note had not been met. During prolonged periods of inactivity the aircraft’s engine had not been preserved in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule. The investigation identified a degraded diaphragm in the engine fuel control system, which could no longer be considered airworthy. However, the engine manufacturer concluded it would not have affected the normal operation of the engine.

The aircraft had been issued with a Permit to Fly and its Certificate of Validity was in date, but the issues identified in this investigation indicated that the aircraft was no longer in compliance with the requirements of its Permit to Fly.

Caco

[Cacophonix]

Forecast is loads more drivel on TOP and the media, I'm afraid.

I'm not qualified at all to comment on today's factual report, but can only agree with Boac's forecast above.

I was at the Biggin Hill air show in September 1980 when Don Bullock tried to roll the A-26 Invader above the adjacent valley. Thousands of us saw it happen before our eyes, there were many graphic pictures and several videos, and the news media went into a frenzy of mis-information and conjecture because of the very public location and the fact that six passengers were on board, compounding the horror. Sadly, it's almost inevitable in such dramatic circumstances.

Came across some video of Mr Bullock displaying the A26 in happier days...


[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ-nPbmFrm4[/bbvideo]

Caco

[Cacophonix]

Forecast is loads more drivel

If I hear one more of these so called 'serious' newscasters and correspondents describe the aerobatic manoeuvre involved as "looping the loop" again I will personally lose what's left of my mind, go around and reach deep into their fundaments and loop their intestines around their sclerotic heads.

Caco

[Boac]

Forecast is loads more drivel on TOP and the media, I'm afraid.

- one of my more accurate forecasts, I'm afraid. The world famous 'Courtney Mil' does not seem to know when to stop.

[Ex-Ascot]

The mindless mods at TOP have closed the thread and deleted the last 48 hrs of postings. There were some very valid points being raised from lawyers about Andy not necessarily being charged with manslaughter or if he was he would probably be found not guilty. Wish I had copied the relevant main post across to here but not really cricket.

[Cacophonix]

The mindless mods at TOP have closed the thread and deleted the last 48 hrs of postings. There were some very valid points being raised from lawyers about Andy not necessarily being charged with manslaughter or if he was he would probably be found not guilty. Wish I had copied the relevant main post across to here but not really cricket.

Panic uber alles! I sincerely hope the authorities leave Mr Hill in peace as there is little to be gained from scapegoating him. The questions surrounding maintenance and the organisers are still open I guess.

Caco

[Cacophonix]

Having read the report in its entirety I must ask the esteemed denizens of this thread how likely they think it is that a pilot of Mr Hill's calibre and experience would have been to have simply mixed up the numbers, speeds and gates for a Hunter with those for a Provost, the aircraft he had most recently been aero checked on?

Caco

[Boac]

I find the attempts to 'excuse' the accident annoying. NB All in my opinion:-

It is unlikley that anyone would 'mix up' two types that are so different. The only 'similarity' is in the cockpit arrangement of side-by-side seats with a restraining cover over the right one. The Jet Provost would have had wings sticking out both sides of his vision all the way from North Weald as a reminder as well. I would also suggest that if you cannot remember the aircraft you strapped into....................

There is much 'chatter' about odd engine performance, manoeuvre entry height, manoeuvre shape and speed and other small anomalies. I return to my point a while back that in essence these are 'of interest' only in what happened before the apex ie HOW it got where it did, and the key is what happened then. All else is really irrelevant, but has, of course, to be explored by the AAIB. I find it odd that he attempted a pull through from what was significantly too low a height. Regardless of possible 'altimeter issues' (which would probably cause an under-read) etc, I can assure all that being upside down at 2700' is vastly different visually to being upside down at 3700'. At the lower levels the difference is marked. Add to that the fact that the view ahead would be of the rising terrain of the South Downs and I would be wondering if I indeed had enough height!

Now the 'chatter' is about his 'medical condition' and 'had he had a TIA' etc etc. Again, I can assure you that as a responsible pilot doing a display I would NOT continue if I was so unwell.

I applaud the loyal efforts to 'exonerate' a mate but question the apparent 'assumption' that unintentionally killing people with an aircraft is different to doing it with a road vehicle and view arguing for 'no police investigation' unreal. Whether or not there is - or should be - any sort of CPS prosecution is for greater minds than mine.

[Cacophonix]

The truth is that while the AAIB report is extensive and gives a very good statement of many facts of the case and shortcomings in the display flown, the aircraft's systems, maintenance, the Shoreham's show's safety organisation and provision etc. it simply doesn't answer why this accident happened! You may argue that it happened because an aerobatic manoeuvre was flown from too low a level at too low a speed and with lack of flight profile adjustments up to and including the execution of an escape roll or whatever but that is pure semantics and really doesn't say why that happened!

Are we simply expected to conclude that a perfectly rational, reasonable pilot with impeccable credentials, including a history as an RAF fast jet instructor and a job as a BA Captain, perversely ignored all he had learned about flying the aircraft he was in and went on ignoring all his natural instincts of self preservation to fly a routine that should have killed him at the very least?

I think not!

We can only conclude that why this accident happened is still a mystery. We know why many people were killed etc. but the primum mobile is still to be determined!

Will the British police be able to glean any further information from the pilot? The answer is most probably no. He was severely injured and given that he was put into an induced coma after being extracted from the wreckage he is likely to be suffering from brain trauma and consequent amnesia. Are the police competent to make an assessment of this accident when the AAIB, who are so competent, have singularly failed to find the actual cause? The answer is no and then we must ask if justice can be served by prosecuting a man who cannot remember the day he flew and when the UK's primary independent aviation accident investigation organisation cannot conclude the definitive reason for the origin of the accident? I would argue no and those who would simply argue that somebody must be punished for the accident are simply pandering to a base human impulse and not to the reasonable tenets of justice!

Caco

[Boac]

Are we simply expected to conclude that a perfectly rational, reasonable pilot etc etc

- would he be the first, Caco?