I think the tragic thing is that those that were stood by watching wouldn't have been able to process what was going on and the magnitude until it was to late
Aviation Hawker Hunter Down.
- Thread starter andyglym
- Start date
From today's press it seems the pilot is perfectly ok but as yet absolutely no indication of any actions from the authority's about publishing a full report to explain why these uninvolved people were killed. Until this is available it will be unknown if the present regulations are adequate.
While I think it very sensible that the show has been cancelled until matters are hopefully resolved ,( and will hopefully reappear with a better regard to the general public) .
I still fail to understand why the safer option of performing over the sea was ignored,surely using this option this years show could go ahead.
Pilot error? Who knows? A bin lorry driver killed a few people up in Scotland a Christmas or two ago.....
But a report into that incident has been made public.whereas the Shoreham incident seems to have no report available for the public.
(I personally think action should have been taken in the Glasgow incident due to the way relevant facts seem to have been kept from the authoritys (employers and dvla) ,people have been prosecuted for similar offences,but powers well above me decided no wrong had been committed.)
It does seem a similarity to both cases ,no apology from the person operating either bus/aircraft. A simple apology (without fault admission,because no accusation of fault has been made) would be helpful. If I have missed the apology I apologies.
I do consider we require the result of the inquiry to enable future shows to go ahead,as I fear that the present situation could result in a call for unfortunate drastic actions.
(I personally think action should have been taken in the Glasgow incident due to the way relevant facts seem to have been kept from the authoritys (employers and dvla) ,people have been prosecuted for similar offences,but powers well above me decided no wrong had been committed.)
It does seem a similarity to both cases ,no apology from the person operating either bus/aircraft. A simple apology (without fault admission,because no accusation of fault has been made) would be helpful. If I have missed the apology I apologies.
I do consider we require the result of the inquiry to enable future shows to go ahead,as I fear that the present situation could result in a call for unfortunate drastic actions.
@abh29 I'm guessing you are not an aviation enthusiast. Air displays at airfields are different to seaside displays. At an airfield you see the aircraft on the ground and you are at the venue. You are amongst others that appreciate the activity sufficiently to spend £20 on the gate to be a part of the day.
Beach airshows are 200,000 people who've turned up with the kids to see the Red Arrows, and point at a Hurricane whilst shouting "look, a Spitfire!". Most don't appreciate the rest of the show and fewer contribute by chucking a fiver in the collection buckets.
AAIB investigations are extremely thorough, usually involving a reconstruction of the aircraft when lives have been lost. The AAIB don't speculate or guess, their answer will be correct or inconclusive based on fact alone. It takes time to get it right, and they do have other work to do.
It will be one of 3 things, pilot error, pilot medical or aircraft failure. The latter being either age or maintenance related. When it comes the report will be correct and hopefully the media will acually understand its content before commenting.
The high energy ban is both reasonable and correct IMHO. Hopefully the final recommendations will be something between the two.
Whilst the deaths are extremely sad, to put it into perspective, these are the first bystander deaths for 40 odd years. That is a far better track record than football.
What we can't allow is a kneejerk airshow ban or excessively tight regulations which stop their future completely.
Beach airshows are 200,000 people who've turned up with the kids to see the Red Arrows, and point at a Hurricane whilst shouting "look, a Spitfire!". Most don't appreciate the rest of the show and fewer contribute by chucking a fiver in the collection buckets.
AAIB investigations are extremely thorough, usually involving a reconstruction of the aircraft when lives have been lost. The AAIB don't speculate or guess, their answer will be correct or inconclusive based on fact alone. It takes time to get it right, and they do have other work to do.
It will be one of 3 things, pilot error, pilot medical or aircraft failure. The latter being either age or maintenance related. When it comes the report will be correct and hopefully the media will acually understand its content before commenting.
The high energy ban is both reasonable and correct IMHO. Hopefully the final recommendations will be something between the two.
Whilst the deaths are extremely sad, to put it into perspective, these are the first bystander deaths for 40 odd years. That is a far better track record than football.
What we can't allow is a kneejerk airshow ban or excessively tight regulations which stop their future completely.
A couple of points
1-- at this location the sea area was adjacent to the airfield so could have been used for overflying.
2-- I wonder how you arrived at the fact it is safer than football. To compare figures you will need to know the total number of people that go to football (or are the area of football)over a year,and the number of people that go to air displays (or are in the area of an airdisplay)over a year. Take the total numbers for both over the years you wish to compare ,and the fatality,s for each,and arrive at a risk per visit of being involved in a fatality.I Would be surprised if football came out worse,but don't think the case could be calculated.
1-- at this location the sea area was adjacent to the airfield so could have been used for overflying.
2-- I wonder how you arrived at the fact it is safer than football. To compare figures you will need to know the total number of people that go to football (or are the area of football)over a year,and the number of people that go to air displays (or are in the area of an airdisplay)over a year. Take the total numbers for both over the years you wish to compare ,and the fatality,s for each,and arrive at a risk per visit of being involved in a fatality.I Would be surprised if football came out worse,but don't think the case could be calculated.
The flightline at Shoreham to where the display line would be offshore is over a mile away. It doesn't work.
Football, Location and death toll
Burden Park. - 33
Bradford City - 56
Ibrox - 2 and 66
and of course, Hillsborough - 96
And then If we were to count the violence and hooliganism related deaths and injuries, something you don't see at air displays.
But it isn't about percentages, it is about publically percieved risk and the majority not accepting minority pleasures. I'd ban football stadiums on the basis of Hillsborough, but that will never happen as there is too much money involved and everybody "loves" football.
Target shooting with hand guns, the hobby of 50,000 law abiding citizens was banned due to Dunblane, the actions of someone the Police knew should not have held a licence, but allowed it as he "had something on the local Cops". The file on this is locked away and sealed with a 100 year closure order. Why? Someone got something to hide??
Football, Location and death toll
Burden Park. - 33
Bradford City - 56
Ibrox - 2 and 66
and of course, Hillsborough - 96
And then If we were to count the violence and hooliganism related deaths and injuries, something you don't see at air displays.
But it isn't about percentages, it is about publically percieved risk and the majority not accepting minority pleasures. I'd ban football stadiums on the basis of Hillsborough, but that will never happen as there is too much money involved and everybody "loves" football.
Target shooting with hand guns, the hobby of 50,000 law abiding citizens was banned due to Dunblane, the actions of someone the Police knew should not have held a licence, but allowed it as he "had something on the local Cops". The file on this is locked away and sealed with a 100 year closure order. Why? Someone got something to hide??
Hi have only ever been to one football match ,Rangers v Celtic on a New Year's Day many many moons ago. I believe that holding the game on that day was actually banned a few years later. What I saw should resulted in it haveing been banned ---- full stop.Wrong shape ball for me.
Quite a few of the football incidents involved people who were involved in some way at a match , whereas at Shorham some fatalities were people who were not involved,just passing.This is my point , people have the choice to go to any event and consider if a risk is involved,but at Shorham people uninvolved lost lives.
Hillsborough seems to be a case of vested interests fighting to avoid truth ever coming out,like a few other "Enquiries" that seems to have been delayed for years.
Regarding gun laws , to quote a recent American (can not recall who) gun laws only take the guns off the good guys and then only the bad guys have guns. In this I declare a vested interest having held a licence for a long while.
I believe the Air Accident inquiry into Shorham will be accurate,but how long should it take,I think Joe Bloggs is getting suspicious regards Enquiries dragging on in time,in most cases justifiable so.
Quite a few of the football incidents involved people who were involved in some way at a match , whereas at Shorham some fatalities were people who were not involved,just passing.This is my point , people have the choice to go to any event and consider if a risk is involved,but at Shorham people uninvolved lost lives.
Hillsborough seems to be a case of vested interests fighting to avoid truth ever coming out,like a few other "Enquiries" that seems to have been delayed for years.
Regarding gun laws , to quote a recent American (can not recall who) gun laws only take the guns off the good guys and then only the bad guys have guns. In this I declare a vested interest having held a licence for a long while.
I believe the Air Accident inquiry into Shorham will be accurate,but how long should it take,I think Joe Bloggs is getting suspicious regards Enquiries dragging on in time,in most cases justifiable so.
The trouble is, if a freak occurence is allowed to influence anything or everything, we would only need one sports car driver to plough into a bus queue and recreational driving of sports cars will be next on the list.
So that we can all have our own freedoms, we all have to accept the risks of other peoples freedoms.
I'm not saying changes shouldn't occur as a result of Shoreham, I'm saying the changes need to occur once the dust has settled and the actual cause has been discovered and confirmed. Personally, as an aviation enthusiast, I think the displays done by high energy vintage jets have been "too high energy". The airframes are all approaching 50 years old and need to be flown with a little more restraint and respect, but not stopped or relocated.
Consider, had this very same aircraft suffered a hydraulic failure on its approach to land, you could have had exactly the same casualty count, but without a high speed loop.
I also hold an FAC, but won't discuss on a forum, happy to chat FtF, can you make Duxford?
So that we can all have our own freedoms, we all have to accept the risks of other peoples freedoms.
I'm not saying changes shouldn't occur as a result of Shoreham, I'm saying the changes need to occur once the dust has settled and the actual cause has been discovered and confirmed. Personally, as an aviation enthusiast, I think the displays done by high energy vintage jets have been "too high energy". The airframes are all approaching 50 years old and need to be flown with a little more restraint and respect, but not stopped or relocated.
Consider, had this very same aircraft suffered a hydraulic failure on its approach to land, you could have had exactly the same casualty count, but without a high speed loop.
I also hold an FAC, but won't discuss on a forum, happy to chat FtF, can you make Duxford?
Odd you say Duxford as I was for a few year based not far from their ( Great Shelford) but my company moved to Somerset ,a few later I retired .
Don't know about a sports car driving into a bus Q seems you need to be in a refuge lorry ( without deciding in the morning to have an incident).
According to reports the aircraft was below the 500 m the regs stipulated,it appears the regs do control the condition of the airframe (broom with 14 new stales and 22 new heads) but how do you control a plane being outside the regs.
I do not know but is some check made on planes conforming to the regs, any penalty if found to be infringing them.
It really annoys me the situation where people involved in incidents are allowed to just make "no comment" to Enquiries into said incident.( sorry I can remove the capital E)
Don't know about a sports car driving into a bus Q seems you need to be in a refuge lorry ( without deciding in the morning to have an incident).
According to reports the aircraft was below the 500 m the regs stipulated,it appears the regs do control the condition of the airframe (broom with 14 new stales and 22 new heads) but how do you control a plane being outside the regs.
I do not know but is some check made on planes conforming to the regs, any penalty if found to be infringing them.
It really annoys me the situation where people involved in incidents are allowed to just make "no comment" to Enquiries into said incident.( sorry I can remove the capital E)
to compare, neither the Hunter nor the sports car are necessities within society, the refuse truck is.
In the recent refuse truck incident the driver was found to be knowingly unfit to drive.
Kneejerk legislation hits non necessities like, hand guns, but often wrongly.
To date the AAIB have released 2 interim reports, neither contain final conclusions. Unfortunately, uneducated journalists interpret them incorrectly. You can usually spot them, they use phrases such as "plummet" or "loop-the-loop", neither phases are ever used by aviators.
Imagine for one minute, you are flying at 200ft. You need to be at 500ft to "legally" start a loop. You start to climb. At 500ft do you,
a) return to level flight, then commence your loop
b) continue to climb and convert to loop.
Entry altitude is irrelevant, altitude and speed over the top is.
I'm not defending the pilot from guilt, i'm defending him from trial by media before all the facts are known. However the final AAIB report will report the facts, but it will not aportion blame.
In the recent refuse truck incident the driver was found to be knowingly unfit to drive.
Kneejerk legislation hits non necessities like, hand guns, but often wrongly.
To date the AAIB have released 2 interim reports, neither contain final conclusions. Unfortunately, uneducated journalists interpret them incorrectly. You can usually spot them, they use phrases such as "plummet" or "loop-the-loop", neither phases are ever used by aviators.
Imagine for one minute, you are flying at 200ft. You need to be at 500ft to "legally" start a loop. You start to climb. At 500ft do you,
a) return to level flight, then commence your loop
b) continue to climb and convert to loop.
Entry altitude is irrelevant, altitude and speed over the top is.
I'm not defending the pilot from guilt, i'm defending him from trial by media before all the facts are known. However the final AAIB report will report the facts, but it will not aportion blame.
a report on the BBC tonight states[not always happy regarding BBC accuracy]
"Organisers of the Shoreham air show, where a jet crashed last year killing 11 people, were unaware of the pilot's display plans, an interim report says.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) also said they failed to carry out a proper risk assessment."
Unfortunately this is not good for the industry invites over the top reaction from authorities, who are protecting themselves.
the OP stated "The air display regs in the UK are probably the most stringent in the world" but it appears the organisers have not kept to the regulations.
I still feel that the general public were put at risk without justification.
"Organisers of the Shoreham air show, where a jet crashed last year killing 11 people, were unaware of the pilot's display plans, an interim report says.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) also said they failed to carry out a proper risk assessment."
Unfortunately this is not good for the industry invites over the top reaction from authorities, who are protecting themselves.
the OP stated "The air display regs in the UK are probably the most stringent in the world" but it appears the organisers have not kept to the regulations.
I still feel that the general public were put at risk without justification.
I would make a couple of points here:
All aircraft whatever their age conform to a certificate of airworthiness.
No pilot wants to crash, yet alone crash into and cause the injury or death of others.
As with everything there is a risk, you can plan against risk, but you will never remove it completely.
In this day and age to many people will cover there arses, if that means the banning of something that is loved by thousands that is no concern to them. Their only aim is to make sure that they in no way can be blamed for anything.
The press in all its forms is not concerned with the rights and wrongs of any incident, It is only concerned with influencing the masses in order to make money.
Mike
All aircraft whatever their age conform to a certificate of airworthiness.
No pilot wants to crash, yet alone crash into and cause the injury or death of others.
As with everything there is a risk, you can plan against risk, but you will never remove it completely.
In this day and age to many people will cover there arses, if that means the banning of something that is loved by thousands that is no concern to them. Their only aim is to make sure that they in no way can be blamed for anything.
The press in all its forms is not concerned with the rights and wrongs of any incident, It is only concerned with influencing the masses in order to make money.
Mike
What they also said was that the same pilot and aircraft was warned for overflying and tight turns a built up area the year before, yet, they didn't asses his flight plans on this occasion. Allowing it once is careless, allowing it a second time is reckless beyond belief. Not just pilot error but the show organisers and the display director made errors.
Sadly it will make it harder now for many displays.
Spot on...
I would make a couple of points here:
All aircraft whatever their age conform to a certificate of airworthiness.
"this aircraft did as far as I know, buts lets recall that any bit of mechanical plant can fail at the most unfortunate time---why you consider it in the Risk Assessment along with the consequences of that occurring"
No pilot wants to crash, yet alone crash into and cause the injury or death of others.
It seems the pilot , unlike a number of car drivers and passenger's has recovered ok He has a degree of control over events unlike people just driving along a major highway
As with everything there is a risk, you can plan against risk, but you will never remove it completely.
It seems the organisers failed to complete and adhere to a full Risk Assessment --a means of reducing the risk--its very difficult to completely remove risk, Are you saying the Air Show Industry has no obligation to minimise risks to life?
In this day and age to many people will cover there arses, if that means the banning of something that is loved by thousands that is no concern to them. Their only aim is to make sure that they in no way can be blamed for anything.
It seems that proper measures to reduce the risk to third parties was not completed. In not taking the best endeavours to keep people safe the organisers have been the worst enemy of those whose enjoyment are air shows.
As regards protecting their own backside , Yes this will apply to the Civil Servants involved BUT ,why give them the need to take what they see as protection.
The press in all its forms is not concerned with the rights and wrongs of any incident, It is only concerned with influencing the masses in order to make money
I have not seen any suggestion the press is suggesting amending the regs the shows are now working under , but trust you are not suggesting the Air Shows be exempt from regs to safeguard the public. How do the press make money by stopping Air Shows?.
The OP says "The air display regs in the UK are probably the most stringent in the world" but it now seems these have been ignored.
Lets not forget the some of the folk who lost live were just driving along a road and not involved in any way with the Air Show.
Mike
All aircraft whatever their age conform to a certificate of airworthiness.
"this aircraft did as far as I know, buts lets recall that any bit of mechanical plant can fail at the most unfortunate time---why you consider it in the Risk Assessment along with the consequences of that occurring"
No pilot wants to crash, yet alone crash into and cause the injury or death of others.
It seems the pilot , unlike a number of car drivers and passenger's has recovered ok He has a degree of control over events unlike people just driving along a major highway
As with everything there is a risk, you can plan against risk, but you will never remove it completely.
It seems the organisers failed to complete and adhere to a full Risk Assessment --a means of reducing the risk--its very difficult to completely remove risk, Are you saying the Air Show Industry has no obligation to minimise risks to life?
In this day and age to many people will cover there arses, if that means the banning of something that is loved by thousands that is no concern to them. Their only aim is to make sure that they in no way can be blamed for anything.
It seems that proper measures to reduce the risk to third parties was not completed. In not taking the best endeavours to keep people safe the organisers have been the worst enemy of those whose enjoyment are air shows.
As regards protecting their own backside , Yes this will apply to the Civil Servants involved BUT ,why give them the need to take what they see as protection.
The press in all its forms is not concerned with the rights and wrongs of any incident, It is only concerned with influencing the masses in order to make money
I have not seen any suggestion the press is suggesting amending the regs the shows are now working under , but trust you are not suggesting the Air Shows be exempt from regs to safeguard the public. How do the press make money by stopping Air Shows?.
The OP says "The air display regs in the UK are probably the most stringent in the world" but it now seems these have been ignored.
Lets not forget the some of the folk who lost live were just driving along a road and not involved in any way with the Air Show.
Mike
Last edited by a moderator:
the latest AAIB bulletin can be found here, probably best to read the original rather than a journalists interpretation!
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aai...ker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi-special-bulletin-s1-2016
It is still not a final report and does not identify the cause of the accident. It does however highlight what is basically a "catalog of errors" in the paperwork, risk assessments and management leading upto and during the Shoreham event. It also highlights many failings in the rules governing such events, some of which I wouldn't mind betting are from before the time when fast jets came into private ownership.
In my opinion, this report highlights a number of proceedure issues that do quite rightly need addressing and will improve airshow safety in the future.
But, "paperwork" didn't cause this aircraft to crash. It could have possibly prevented it, but it didn't cause it. That remains to be either the aircraft itself or the pilot.
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aai...ker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi-special-bulletin-s1-2016
It is still not a final report and does not identify the cause of the accident. It does however highlight what is basically a "catalog of errors" in the paperwork, risk assessments and management leading upto and during the Shoreham event. It also highlights many failings in the rules governing such events, some of which I wouldn't mind betting are from before the time when fast jets came into private ownership.
In my opinion, this report highlights a number of proceedure issues that do quite rightly need addressing and will improve airshow safety in the future.
But, "paperwork" didn't cause this aircraft to crash. It could have possibly prevented it, but it didn't cause it. That remains to be either the aircraft itself or the pilot.
I would say aircraft, came down in a strange way and I don't think any pilot could counter act that.
Looked like it to me and I hope it was, old jet etc, and I don't think any pilot, in their right mind, would want to crash their plane.