Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I'm late to this one, but have a great interest in the psychology of aviation accidents.
Background: tour and a bit on the Tornado F3. No low level display but lots of aeros. Station Flight Safety Officer for a big fighter base (read a lot of accident reports).
I've read the whole thread and the accident report.
Initial impression - AH is flying the Jet Provost numbers. This causes the accident.
The phenomenon is what I call 'Reversion to type'. I've seen it several times in accidents and a lot in the simulator (I've instructed).
For BOAC's benefit (he's the expert here), I would mention NM's Red Arrows roll back fatal and SM's F3 sea impact fatal. Both guys, at the crunch moment, performed manoeuvres that would have worked on their most familiar type (Lightning in both cases), but were fatal in the aircraft they were in.
I take BOAC's point about the many cues that the pilot was in a different aeroplane, but the same would apply to the other two accidents.
I think reversion to type happens in three circumstances
1. High Stress (e.g. NM)
2. Very low stress (e.g. SM)
3. High fatigue.
I am unsure which applies to AH; could be any of them from the facts presented.
The psychology of it, I think, is that the subconscious brain demands familiar cues, and muscle memory decides the actions. Every other higher level cue is ignored by the brain.
Ever seen a drunk trying to open a hotel door the same way his own front door opens, and thus completely failing to get into his hotel room?
Happens all the time, doesn't it?
I would welcome the team's thoughts on this.

n.b. Since Reversion to type is a human error, then it would not be negligence.

[Boac]

I certainly cannot comment on the psychological aspects of this accident, except to say that hurling hot and heavy bits of metal around near people demands strict control of self and machine and where/when one feels this is absent it is encumbent on you to change what you are doing. 'Reversion to type' has to be trained out. The only challenge to your theory I would observe is that AH entered the manoeuvre close to Hunter speeds and being upside down at the top of a slow loop is not the place to think you are in a different aeroplane. Performance gates are 'learnt' for a reason. I doubt we will ever know what actually happened. Without memory of the event by AH we can only surmise from the available facts.

Incidentally, your 3 'triggers' actually describe most pilots' lives!

I am not familiar with the findings of Neil's accident, but as an ex-Lightning pilot I did not find the roll-back handling that 'different'. My 'replacement' for the 1978 season, Steve Noble, also died practising this in March '78, killing his passenger Dennis Hazell and resulting in my return to the team for the season. I don't think any 'reversion to type' was suggested (Steve was, I think, ex-Buccaneer) but other causes proposed.

The question of 'negligence' is a difficult one. In law, it is "a breach of a duty of care which results in damage" and that is what any trial must consider. 'Why' is another matter.

[Cacophonix]

In a few words - pour encourager les autres.

How many corners were cut? How many blind eyes turned? AH may not be the only person facing the beak

If only this was true. I will buy everybody who has posted on this thread a drink if anybody other than AH is put in the dock for this accident. The CAA will never admit that their regulations and vetting procedures were lax or inept. The organisers will swear blind that they followed the CAA's regulations so the only person in the frame will be poor Andy Hill. So it goes and it will always be.

Caco

[Ex-Ascot]

With only JP experience of aerobatics during training I am not really qualified to join in this technical discussion with you two esteemed 'small' FJ guys. However, sorry Fox, but I have to go with Boac on this one. Those parameters, gates etc should have been paramount in AH's mind throughout the display. We have all been current, or at least flying, different types at one time. You just don't mix them up unless you have some sort of mental breakdown. If this goes to court I belive that this would be the best defence.

[Boac]

Caco - I support your concerns for the CAA's systems, but as discussed way back, blaming show organisers etc opens a whole new can of worms.

Two scenarios for you - a pilot mishandles his jet and a collision occurs over Farnborough town during the show, with the wreckage landing on a heavily built-up area. Who is at fault? Very, very few displays can take place within a show boundaries.

A 777 suffers a major loss of engine response on approach to LHR and crashes onto houses short of the A30 and then onto the road. Who is at fault?

Going down the 'organisers'/'owners' route is a big thing! No more Farnborough Air Show? Close Heathrow? The area in which AH performed his fateful loop was well clear of much risk - it was extremely unfortunate he was probably using the A27 as his exit line - and crashed.

[Cacophonix]

Caco - I support your concerns for the CAA's systems, but as discussed way back, blaming show organisers etc opens a whole new can of worms.

Two scenarios for you - a pilot mishandles his jet and a collision occurs over Farnborough town during the show, with the wreckage landing on a heavily built-up area. Who is at fault? Very, very few displays can take place within a show boundaries.

A 777 suffers a major loss of engine response on approach to LHR and crashes onto houses short of the A30 and then onto the road. Who is at fault?

Going down the 'organisers'/'owners' route is a big thing! No more Farnborough Air Show? Close Heathrow? The area in which AH performed his fateful loop was well clear of much risk - it was extremely unfortunate he was probably using the A27 as his exit line - and crashed.

Boac while I take your points and am clearly keen to avoid the logical conclusions of the outcomes in the examples you posit I must say that the reason I am adamant that the Shoreham folks must take some of the heat is that they indicated that they were not au fait with the routine that AH was due to fly and thus had not really vetted what would occur within their ATZ let alone the boundaries of the airfield. This can't be right can it? I am keen for these things to be brought out into open to remove the fog, prevent injustice and to protect the future of airshows and airfields etc. I don't want to see Shoreham hammered or shut down but for justice to be done both the CAA and the organisers should also be brought into the frame in this particular case.

I would also argue that there are very specific differences between routine and non routine flights into airfields and airshows where the legal issues around an airshow must be regarded in the light of the additional risks associated with these and treated accordingly. So your examples are apples and pears in my humble opinion and should be regarded differently before the law although cases of negligence can be brought in cases associated with either category tis true.

Caco

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks BOAC,
I formed my impression from the following bits of the accident report

1.1.2 p7 The aircraft’s airspeed at entry to the ‘bent loop’ was to be a minimum of
350 KIAS, and if the airspeed was less than this the manoeuvre would not be
attempted. If the airspeed was at least 350 KIAS, the nose would be pitched
up and maximum thrust set. Approaching the vertical in the subsequent climb,
the aircraft would be rolled to the left to arrive at the apex inverted with an
airspeed of about 150 KIAS.

1.11.7.4 p51 JP displays from previous weekend
Heights at apex of loop, 2,750 ft to 3,150 ft, speed at apex 105 kts - 130 kts

1.11.8.2 p53 Engine speed during manoeuvres ..The accident engine speed decreases from below max during the climb phase. Previous displays show the engine speed at max or increasing to max during the climb phase. The display calls for max throughout.

1.16.1 p72 Trials by TP These flight trials also demonstrated that entering a straight loop at a speed
of 300 KIAS from 200 ft agl, and T7 equivalent maximum thrust, the aircraft
achieved apex heights between 3,400 ft and 3,800 ft agl while conducting
looping manoeuvres, or a height gain of between 3,200 ft and 3,600 ft.
Conducing bent loops with the same entry conditions resulted in height gain
of between 2,800 ft and 3,200 ft.

(=3,000 ft and 3,400 ft indicated agl)

2.1 p161 The available evidence indicates that it
reached a maximum height of approximately 2,700 ft,

2.2.1.1. p162 It pitched up into the manoeuvre at an
airspeed of 310 ±15 KIAS, less than the minimum entry airspeed of 350 KIAS;

2.2.1.1 p163 Possibility 2. Read the ASI correctly but recalled the incorrect target
speed, possibly substituting the required entry speed for that
of another aircraft type.

2.2.1.2 p164 2.2.1.2 The apex of the manoeuvre
The pilot looked down towards the general area of the flight instruments on
two occasions as the aircraft arrived at the apex of the manoeuvre but it is not
known which, if any, of the instruments he observed. The available evidence
indicates that the aircraft reached a height of approximately 2,700 ft, which was
below the pilot’s stated target, at an airspeed of approximately 105 kt, which
was slower than normal.

p165 Possibility 3. The pilot read the altimeter correctly but did not accurately
recall the minimum height required at the apex of the looping
manoeuvre for this aircraft.

p 171 2.4.2.2 The majority of the pilot’s jet display flying was in the Jet Provost, which has
significantly different performance and lower apex gate heights in looping
manoeuvres than the Hunter. His greater experience and recency on the
Jet Provost meant that he was more likely to be familiar with the speeds and
handling characteristics of this type, and to recall them more easily than those
for the Hunter.

In summary, given the parameters at the apex are so close to the JP figures, and so far from the Hunter figures, plus the incorrect and unique reductions of thrust during the climb phase of the manoeuvre, I think he was actively (though subconsciously) working to achieve the JP figures.
Given the numerous references throughout the report, I think at least one of the report's authors does too.

Aerobatics was never my strong point, and I've only done sequences at altitude, but there were check heights before various forms of vertical manoevring in air combat training and low level affiliation training on the Tornado, and these were assessed on annual QFI rides. 800 ft low on a check height is beyond my comprehension. Below by 1 ft was always a no-no in my experience.

[Boac]

The High Court has now ruled that any AAIB evidence cannot be released to the police. The inquest is already delayed and will now be further delayed.

[AtomKraft]

Well, the report is out, and the AAIB have put it down to 'pilot error'.

I think, to anyone with a brain, the cause was kinda obvious right from the start. No shame to it. The pilot certainly never intended it to happen, he just ballsed it up. No "mens rea" anywhere in sight.

The thing I find odd, is that had a similar thing happened in 1965, we wouldn't need to wait a couple of years to get a 400 page report confirming what the pilots' granny could have told us, had she been the only witness.

[Ex-Ascot]

As you say. no surprise. Now the lawyers get rich.

[Boac]

Joint announcement tonight by CPS and the Police that Andy Hill is to be charged with Manslaughter through gross negligence and endangering an aircraft. It means, of course, a further delay now for the inquests.

[Ex-Ascot]

Not sure if I agree with this decision. How many airline pilots have been charged with manslaughter following an accident caused by pilot error?

Don't know the chap but he screwed up. I did once but I divorced her. I don't think that he deserves this.

Boac, as a display pilot, what are your thoughts?

[Capetonian]

If, and I emphasize if, he was grossly negligent, then I would think that the charge would be appropriate as there was significant loss of life.

[Cacophonix]

I feel intensely sorry for this chap. What good can come out of this prosecution?

Caco

[Capetonian]

The people who were killed were innocent bystanders, they were not people who had paid to go to the airshow and in so doing elected to participate in the risk. Prosecution might not do any 'good', but someone whose grossly negligent act causes deaths cannot go unpunished. Exactly the same happens if a road accident caused by gross negligence results in death.

I too feel intensely sorry for this chap, but that is not the point. Nor am I saying he was grossly negligent, I am saying if that were the case.

[Boac]

"Boac, as a display pilot, what are your thoughts?" - I did express them way back, but since we are now effectively 'sub judice' in the UK I will refrain.

[Boac]

The pilot from the Shoreham Airshow crash tragedy is due to stand trial next week.

Andy Hill, who was flying the Hawker Hunter aircraft that tragically crashed in August 2015, is due to stand trial next week.He denies 11 charges of manslaughter by gross negligence and also denies a charge of endangering an aircraft under air navigation laws.

[Ex-Ascot]

The pilot from the Shoreham Airshow crash tragedy is due to stand trial next week.

Andy Hill, who was flying the Hawker Hunter aircraft that tragically crashed in August 2015, is due to stand trial next week.He denies 11 charges of manslaughter by gross negligence and also denies a charge of endangering an aircraft under air navigation laws.

This is going to be very interesting. That is all I will say at this moment. But, how much evidence is being revealed?

[Ex-Ascot]

The reporting on this trial varies. One newspaper says 5 weeks long another says 8. The Daily Mail says his defence is blackout with g force no other newspaper mentions this. It is going to be very interesting. How on earth are the jury with an average IQ of not a lot and probably zero knowledge of aviation going to come to a verdict? It is going to have nothing to do with facts it will just be the skills of the barristers. Guess that Andy has a top notch one.

[k3k3]

Andy Hill was involved in an accident where eleven people died and is facing manslaughter charges.

Thirty years ago a 737 with an engine problem crashed after the pilots shut down the good engine, 47 people died. Nobody faced criminal charges.

Just saying.