Crash At Shoreham Airshow.

[TenEightyOne]

This goes back to the possibility of an incorrect altimeter setting before takeoff, resulting in an incorrect reading while airborne, as was shown to be the case with that Thunderbirds, and resulted in a procedural change for them.

Certainly does. I'd add again that there were pockets of very very hot weather all around Britain at that time, not least at Shoreham. The airfield should have given him up-to-date mets but maybe that all went wrong.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Relatives are asking why the pilot has yet to be interviewed. My own guess would be that he either doesn't remember anything or that their estimation of his overall condition is a little high. BBC.

 

[TenEightyOne]

An AAIB Special Bulletin has been released with a number of safety recommendations, particularly around the lifespan and safety of ejection mechanisms. PDF at AAIB, summary at BBC.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The same pilot (Andy Hill) had his 2014 display in a Provost T5 (two seat RAF basic jet trainer from the 50s) terminated mid-display due to safety concerns from the Flight Display Director. He was instructed to modify his routine and performed again on the Sunday. The police are considering this information as part of their investigation.

The preliminary report into his 2015 crash suggests that he began his loop manouevre at around 200ft despite only being licensed for stunts at 500ft+. Telegraph.

 

[TenEightyOne]

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36743282

 

[wfooshee]

Well, if they put him up for manslaughter they'd better for sure eliminate all possibility of a failure in the aircraft, and prove the altitude was too low at some part of the maneuver. I wouldn't consider a pilot who ejects from an out-of-control aircraft guilty of manslaughter, no matter the level of the tragedy on the ground. If he had any level of control, the "noble" and "heroic" thing to do would have been to ride it down to an unoccupied area, but even then, that's a very difficult decision for someone to make; them or me.....

If there was anything incorrect or unsafe about his flying, and he knew it was incorrect or unsafe, then throw the book at him, but if you can't prove it, and if there was a problem in the airplane not of his doing that he could not correct, then it's a tragedy but there is no one to blame.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well, if they put him up for manslaughter they'd better for sure eliminate all possibility of a failure in the aircraft, and prove the altitude was too low at some part of the maneuver.

He was below the minimum height that he'd been cleared to perform at and he wasn't familiar with the aircraft. It's not up to the police to decide to charge him, it's up to the CPS... but I'm sure they'll take those factors into account. The ejection was hardly at altitude, he attempted to eject as he hit the cars.

 

[GTPorsche]

He should at least be charged with whatever the equivalent would be to operating a vehicle in a negligent manner.

 

[wfooshee]

... and he wasn't familiar with the aircraft....

Wait, what? When did they say that? (I missed that if it's in the thread somewhere.)

How is someone unfamiliar with an aircraft flying it in a public demonstration????!!!!??! How is someone unfamiliar with an aircraft flying it at all???

 

[GTPorsche]

Wait, what? When did they say that? (I missed that if it's in the thread somewhere.)

How is someone unfamiliar with an aircraft flying it in a public demonstration????!!!!??! How is someone unfamiliar with an aircraft flying it at all???

Because fighter planes are specialized for what they're built for and apparently someone trusted this guy to fly one of the fastest early post-war jets without having any knowledge of how to operate it properly.

 

[wfooshee]

What, are you a politician? A complete nonsense "answer" to my question.

Me: Why did this happen? HOW could it happen?"

You: Because it happened.

My question was about qualification and certification. What air authority would allow something like that? Who rates the pilots and certifies them on aircraft types? How does a pilot get into an aircraft he's not rated on? How does a pilot do a PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION in an aircraft he's not rated on? Who's responsible for saying, "This pilot is qualified in this aircraft."

if that never happened, then someone besides just the pilot has some responsibility for this!

It's not like you can walk up to the air boss and say, "Hey, I flew F-80s in 1953, so I can take that thing up and give you a good show." If this guy didn't actually have certified qualification papers in the aircraft, why was he flying it? How can a pilot "not familiar with the aircraft" be allowed to demonstrate it? This stuff doesn't work like a 1930s circus act, where you beg the ringleader for a chance to show what you can do. There's simply no conceivable way that a pilot without certified qualification can get into an aircraft and ad lib a public demonstration. That's why the statement that "he wasn't familiar with the aircraft" is setting off alarm bells all over my bwains. I still haven't seen that stated anywhere except TenEightyOne's post.

 

[GTPorsche]

Complete nonsense? It's a privately owned plane. The owner of the plane hired the guy to fly it for the show. He was qualified to demonstrate the planes maneuverability above 500ft and he was below that mark.

It's no different than an owner of a vintage race car hiring a guy to drive it in historic races. They're not necessarily qualified to drive the car but they've been hired to do so.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I still haven't seen that stated anywhere except TenEightyOne's post.

He had 14,249 hours of flying time up until the crash with only 40 on-type (other sources say 60 split between one and two seater Hunters - it's possible that 40 is the two-seater total). His experience as a Provost instructor and then as an operational Harrier pilot undoubtedly made him a good jet pilot. They did not make him familiar with the Hunter and its vagaries, no pilot would say that they did. Consider that some qualified sources feel the pilot was showing off and that he was flying below the level allowed with his private licence despite having been waved off for exactly the same thing the previous year and you have a recipe for an unsurprising disaster.

 

[wfooshee]

... apparently someone trusted this guy to fly one of the fastest early post-war jets without having any knowledge of how to operate it properly.

He was qualified to demonstrate the planes maneuverability above 500ft and he was below that mark.

Two completely different answers to the same question, so yes, one of them is complete nonsense.

It's no different than an owner of a vintage race car hiring a guy to drive it in historic races. They're not necessarily qualified to drive the car but they've been hired to do so.

It's not even remotely similar. There is no qualify by type in the automotive world. If you're licensed to drive, you "qualified." In the competition world, you're licensed by level, but still not by specific type.

He had 14,249 hours of flying time up until the crash with only 40 on-type (other sources say 60 split between one and two seater Hunters - it's possible that 40 is the two-seater total). His experience as a Provost instructor and then as an operational Harrier pilot undoubtedly made him a good jet pilot. They did not make him familiar with the Hunter and its vagaries, no pilot would say that they did. Consider that some qualified sources feel the pilot was showing off and that he was flying below the level allowed with his private licence despite having been waved off for exactly the same thing the previous year and you have a recipe for an unsurprising disaster.

So there's still some authority who looks at those hours and says, "Yes, he's qualified," or, "No, he can't fly that aircraft." Who is that? In the US, it's the FAA. I don't know if 40 hours in Hawkers is enough to be "rated' or not. His total time certainly makes him an experienced pilot, but is 40 hours enough to be type-rated for public low-altitude flight? It also matters how long ago those 40 hours were, i.e., is his type-rating expired?

And had he been waved off in the US for being below minimum altitude in an airshow, he'd have been sat down before an FAA board and would have had some serious explaining to do, with serious disciplinary action possible.

So my question back in post 70, still not answered, is who has that overseeing responsibility in Great Britain? What authority is it that said, "Good to go?" Did his 40 or 60 hours actually qualify him for a public demonstration? Was the demonstration scripted or was he making it up as he went along? In the US, there is no "Go up and see what she can do," at an air show. Everything is completely sequenced and every maneuver is approved. There is no, "I think I'll do this next" while the show is running. Did he have a sequence or was it ad lib?

 

[BobK]

having been waved off for exactly the same thing the previous year

The quoted reference says only that the pilot was "involved in a separate incident a year before" with no references to the details of the incident, much less "exactly the same thing".

 

[TenEightyOne]

The quoted reference says only that the pilot was "involved in a separate incident a year before" with no references to the details of the incident, much less "exactly the same thing".

It's lower down in the story;

It has been reported that families of the victims have been informed the incident during the Southport Airshow on September 20, 2014, is being looked at as part of the investigation into the Shoreham crash.

Reports say the jet Andy Hill was flying that day was considered to be too low and too close to the crowd.

David Walton, the Flight Display Director responsible for the safety at the Southport event, told ITV News a stop call was immediately issued and the display was terminated.

"A 'stop' call was immediately issued by the Flying Display Director (FDD) on the display radio frequency and the flying display was terminated," he said.

So there's still some authority who looks at those hours and says, "Yes, he's qualified," or, "No, he can't fly that aircraft." Who is that? In the US, it's the FAA. I don't know if 40 hours in Hawkers is enough to be "rated' or not.

The CAA are the equivalent body.

So my question back in post 70, still not answered, is who has that overseeing responsibility in Great Britain? What authority is it that said, "Good to go?" Did his 40 or 60 hours actually qualify him for a public demonstration?

The CAA, the CAA and the airshow's safety officer and yes (above 500 ft).

Everything is completely sequenced and every maneuver is approved. There is no, "I think I'll do this next" while the show is running. Did he have a sequence or was it ad lib?

He had an approved sequence - as with the previous year it appears that he failed to stick to it.

 

[wfooshee]

Thanks!!!

Not sticking to the sequence is enough to get a guy grounded out of the airshow business for good, or at least ought to be, even with one incident.

 

[Liquid]

Did anything ever come of that mysterious vapour trailing the starboard wing? It could tie in with the pilot's assertion that lack of engine power was causative, even if he was below recommended altitude and had been indicted for this kind of thing before.

 

[BobK]

It's lower down in the story;

I somehow missed it, and on rereading I can't imagine how I did. Apologies.

 

[Kent]

Holy double post batman!
Teneightyone really needs to edit those together or something lol.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Did anything ever come of that mysterious vapour trailing the starboard wing? It could tie in with the pilot's assertion that lack of engine power was causative, even if he was below recommended altitude and had been indicted for this kind of thing before.

My own opinion is that the vapour could tie in with a hydraulic failure of some kind (I think I posted) a sys diagram somewhere way back in the thread. The accident investigators had access to more video of (presumably) better quality and don't seem to concur

Holy double post batman!
Teneightyone really needs to edit those together or something lol.

Feb 2nd? Fixed

 

[wfooshee]

Since they're weeks and months apart, they aren't really double posts, but new and separate contributions. Editing them into an existing post would remove the timeline and be quite confusing. "Wow, a lot of stuff happened right there!!!!" in a single post, when actually over a year went by.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Fundamental pilot errors are found to be the cause of the crash. BBC.

AAIB links here, including the formal report as a PDF.

 

[Liquid]

Pilot error. Still the most common cause of plane crashes.

No advancement on the vapour trail off the starboard wing?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pilot error. Still the most common cause of plane crashes.

No advancement on the vapour trail off the starboard wing?

I haven't read the full report yet but other than an asymmetry in the dual-redundancy altimeters there don't appear to have been any immediate mechanical concerns.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pilot error. Still the most common cause of plane crashes.

The pilot, Andy Hill, is to be charged with eleven counts of manslaughter by gross negligence and a count of endangering an aircraft. BBC.

 

[Liquid]

The pilot, Andy Hill, is to be charged with eleven counts of manslaughter by gross negligence and a count of endangering an aircraft. BBC.

As an aside, a Red Arrow crashed at RAF Valley the other day; the pilot safely ejected but the second member of the two-man crew did not and died in the crash.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As an aside, a Red Arrow crashed at RAF Valley the other day; the pilot safely ejected but the second member of the two-man crew did not and died in the crash.

Indeed. It was Red 3, the crewman who died was the aircraft's engineer. There's no word on why he didn't/couldn't eject although ejector seat problems have been known in the type and in that very unit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

After lots of compelling evidence both for and against fault on the part of the pilot he has been cleared of manslaughter.

 

[boiltheocean]

Sickening. I don't know how the jury could come to such a conclusion that an experienced RAF instructor could be caught off-guard by the effects of G-forces and not be responsible for the manoeuvres he made to place himself in such a position. The prosecution claims he started the loop too low and too slow, backed up the AAIB investigation findings but he gets a pass on killing 11 people because he got a bit disorientated by the effects of prior manoeuvres. He is responsible for his entire routine and, as an experienced pilot, should be fully aware of how his routine would affect his ability to operate the aircraft.