Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

[Boac]

Kind of you.... Indeed, I rose to the dizzy heights of 'admin' there before a succession of 'disagreements' with 'you know who' s brought it to an end - as with several other 'mods-in-arms' as many will know.

I could tell you more, but then I'd have....................

[om15]

Some very interesting points contained in the CAA document, mostly not immediately relevant to the cause of the incident, but facts that were recorded as part of the wider AAIB investigation.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplic ... il&id=7314

[Boac]

There will be a High Court hearing next week (14/15) to decide the request by Sussex Police for the release of relevant information from the investigation. It is opposed by BALPA and the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Ex-Ascot]

So, what are the thoughts on BALPA being involved?

[Boac]

Andy Hill wants his BALPA subs justified?

[Boac]

Sussex Police have today said:

"A 52-year-old man was notified in December he is being investigated for possible endangerment pursuant to Article 138 Air Navigation Order 2009 and also manslaughter by gross negligence."

[Ex-Ascot]

I am not qualified to comment on the cause of the accident. However if Andy is charged will this be a first in aircraft display history? Can't think of another one.

[Boac]

Me neither - i don't think there have been that many recent UK civil a/c accidents causing loss of life other than crew?

[Boac]

The question that is bothering quite a few in the 'vintage'/'display' world is why is the Hunter still effectively grounded?

The key is, surely, whether an aircraft problem or a pilot problem caused the accident. If the former, the grounding is probably justified. Having sat in (on both sides!) of accident enquiries, I know that there will always be 'irregularities' or 'mistakes' in the conduct of either the maintenance or equipment provision - that is life - dig deep enough etc etc and up they pop and I do not believe this Hunter would have been any different to others in that respect.

The question I asked some time ago of those who have done low level aeros in a Hunter T7 (which I have not) is whether a reported 2100ft is enough to pull through in what we understand was an effectively stalled Hunter. Perhaps not unsurpisingly, there has been no response. My gut feeling is that I would not want to be there! Really and truly, it matters not a lot in the big picture what may have happened up to that point. If the machine was either too slow or too low at the apex that is a fact of life. What display pilots have is a gate which is a minimum to be achieved for the next manoeuvre - be it speed or height or both. If you haven't got the gate, you don't.........

The AAIB must by now know whether the necessary gate was achieved. If it was, then either a handling error or aircraft malfunction 'on the way down' would have been the cause. If it was the former then the Hunter should surely be released to display again?

The delay in the reporting, coupled with the efforts of the Police in obtaining some information, is of concern.

[om15]

If it was the former then the Hunter should surely be released to display again

It may well be that the investigators have reviewed other factors from the investigation that were not pertinent to this particular accident, but are indicative of non compliant maintenance, continuing airworthiness management and the integrity of spares and materials that have led them to conclude that the support of these aircraft is not adequate to continue operation.

Experience of civil accidents, and also XV230, has shown that the total continuing airworthiness management has needed to change and be more effective, it is possible that the operators and maintainers of these aging complex aircraft simply do not have the resources or OEM support to continue to fly safely, hence the ban.

[Boac]

Absolutely, but then we have to ask about the Vampires, Canberras, Sea Vixens, Jet Provosts and on and on. It is difficult to accept that the same 'issues' would not read across.

[om15]

I suspect that the same issues will read across, and that these type of aircraft will either have to be managed to Part M standard ( probably impossible with the level of support available) or be grounded.
These aircraft have been kept going by skilled people who know their stuff and can get around problems, using materials cannibalised from scrap aircraft and so on, which is rather different to continuing airworthiness management.
just realised my last link was not the right report, the last paragraph indicates that they are investigating all aspects of the operation.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-in ... -t7-g-bxfi

[Boac]

Time to remember those who died, and the effect the crash has had on aviation, 1 year on. There will be 1 minutes silence at 1322(A) today around Shoreham airport.

[MoreAviation]

Time to remember those who died, and the effect the crash has had on aviation, 1 year on. There will be 1 minutes silence at 1322(A) today around Shoreham airport.

Thanks for the info. Will abide by that here as well.

MA

[Boac]

Interesting and salutory report of the recent Blue Angels fatal http://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-pil ... h-1.429316 concludes that the pilot did not achieve the required 'gate' (height and speed combo) before commencing the pull-through from the inverted.

" According to the report, the maneuver required a minimum altitude of 3,500 feet (1,067 meters) before the plane goes inverted at the top of the climb, and Kuss began the maneuver at 3,196 feet (974 meters). His maximum airspeed was 184 knots, above the recommended range between 125 and 135 knots.

"Airspeed higher than normal for the maneuver and the lower starting altitude limited decision-making opportunities and removed margins of error for corrections to the flight trajectory,..."

There you go. An age-old lesson on many tombstones.

[Boac]

2 out of 3 for the police:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-37495884

[MoreAviation]

Det Ch Insp Paul Rymarz said the force was pleased the court had granted access to "some of the material" it was seeking for its investigation.
"We understand that legally this case is without precedent in England and Wales and we accept the reasons why our request has not been granted in full," he said.

"As we have said before, this is an extraordinarily complex investigation, but we remain committed to finding answers for the families and friends of those who died."
Sussex Police applied to the High Court for the disclosure of records given a protected status in law.

A spokesperson for the AAIB said: "The AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their release.
"We note today's judgment and will now release the film footage to the chief constable of Sussex Police."

Surely the AAIB are far better qualified than the police to make informed comments on all aspects of this case. What they will do with the video remains a mystery to me (at least)!

MA

[Boac]

Well, if it were me, I would subpoena an 'expert witness/es' to comment on the heights and speeds displayed. They have little other option in my opinion. It is my belief that they will then interview other people under caution. As to how far any possible offence/s reach is anyone's' guess.

[Boac]

Good indication that the AAIB report should be out Friday 3rd March.

[Ex-Ascot]

Thanks Boac. Should make interesting reading. Not before time. I don't think that Andy is going to come out smelling of roses. Only my opinion. Would like to be proved wrong.