Shoreham air crash

[breakwellmz]

there are reports that the engine may have partially failed during the loop manoeuvre; video apparently shows an unusual spit of flame at one point.
cheers

Suggesting an engine `Flameout` or `Stall` caused by the loop.

[kwackers]

I was just describing the situation with regards to airfields in my locality. In my case it goes beyond one or two individuals. Parish meetings with 50+ people, Parish Council objections, etc. And when one club concerned attended one parish meeting to try and justify their behaviour ... I even got to feel a bit sorry for the guys as they just had not appreciated what had been going on (and apparently still does).

I've got no idea why you'd fail to get action. The CAA are pretty hot on stuff like this, just a single report from one individual can result in a world of pain even when there's no corroborating evidence to suggest they are right.

[greyingbeard]

"Most crashes occur when the landing goes wrong "

Really Brucey, I'd never have guessed
Landing safely or otherwise is largely about how hard one hits the ground.
Yes I fly too.

anytime you are near an airfield there is a significantly increased chance that a plane will 'land' on you. The vast majority of normal air crashes occur when take off or landing goes wrong.

Near me there is a large airfield with a motorway at one end of the runway. The motorway has been blocked several times when things have gone wrong.

These days airshows use a different protocol for aerobatic manoeuvres over the airfield itself, which is designed to very much reduce the risk to the paying public. An unintended consequence of this is that if a plane goes down, it is more likely to go down someplace else, and anyone in the near vicinity is perhaps in more danger.

So it is best to watch airshows either close-up, or far away, using binoculars perhaps. Places to avoid would be the ends of the runway and a three-quarter-mile radius of there. It is dreadful that bystanders were killed in this crash, and it does bring into question the whole idea of such airshows. Mind you, they are very popular and if there was no danger at all then maybe they wouldn't be?

FWIW I suspect that the pilot may have had a medical emergency of some kind or he honestly believed (right up to the last moment) that he wasn't going to crash as he did; were it otherwise I would suppose that he would have punched out.

cheers

[Psamathe]

anytime you are near an airfield there is a significantly increased chance that a plane will 'land' on you. The vast majority of normal air crashes occur when take off or landing goes wrong.

Near me there is a large airfield with a motorway at one end of the runway. The motorway has been blocked several times when things have gone wrong.

These days airshows use a different protocol for aerobatic manoeuvres over the airfield itself, which is designed to very much reduce the risk to the paying public. An unintended consequence of this is that if a plane goes down, it is more likely to go down someplace else, and anyone in the near vicinity is perhaps in more danger.

So it is best to watch airshows either close-up, or far away, using binoculars perhaps. Places to avoid would be the ends of the runway and a three-quarter-mile radius of there. It is dreadful that bystanders were killed in this crash, and it does bring into question the whole idea of such airshows. Mind you, they are very popular and if there was no danger at all then maybe they wouldn't be?

FWIW I suspect that the pilot may have had a medical emergency of some kind or he honestly believed (right up to the last moment) that he wasn't going to crash as he did; were it otherwise I would suppose that he would have punched out.

cheers

I'm certainly not disputing the statistics but of the 4 accidents I've been present at or have been very local one was a bad landing where pilot walked away and glider had a lot of work done to make it airworthy again. Other 3: fatality after a pilot error in flight, fatality when somebody walked into a running prop and fatality when one or more wings failed during a winch launch (glider). All due to human error, all tragic all "avoidable" and ironically, the only inexperienced pilot was the landing accident where the pilot walked away (landing in good place, just a bit "hard"). Things you experience or that happen close tend to have higher prominence in your mind.

It is difficult when such tragic accidents happen but I agree with the comments about how with the prominent news coverage it is easy for things to get out of proportion. I wonder if the 24hr news culture makes the public perception of risk worse; e.g. each time we hear the story it is "<x> fatalities expected to rise" and next time <x> has risen and expected to rise further.

Ian

[Brucey]

@ Psamathe; they sound nasty accidents; all salutary warnings to others no doubt. I'm lucky enough that I've never seen an aircraft prang first hand but the many possible ways it can happen are fairly well etched on my mind. Plenty of close shaves though...

Oddly enough the near miss that worried me most was when I was on a commercial flight in the USA. I witnessed two other airliners nearly hit one another at 35000 feet; I could see them out of the window and I was listening to the pilot's chatter at the time. The pilot of the plane at fault was on 'transmit' when the collision warning system went off; 'dive.... dive.... dive' it sounded like a manic Stephen Hawking in their cockpit. The two planes in question were 2000 feet higher and about a mile ahead of the one I was in; they were actually at the same flight level and they missed one another by a couple of hundred yards or so horizontally, their paths crossing at right angles. Had they hit one another the plane I was in would have flown through a shower of debris and would have gone down too without doubt. The job I used to have required that I spent a lot of time flying about the place. I don't do that any more.

cheers

[Flinders]

I was just describing the situation with regards to airfields in my locality. In my case it goes beyond one or two individuals. Parish meetings with 50+ people, Parish Council objections, etc. And when one club concerned attended one parish meeting to try and justify their behaviour ... I even got to feel a bit sorry for the guys as they just had not appreciated what had been going on (and apparently still does).

I've got no idea why you'd fail to get action. The CAA are pretty hot on stuff like this, just a single report from one individual can result in a world of pain even when there's no corroborating evidence to suggest they are right.

Maybe they didn't go to the CAA?

Round here they take to tow in as soon as they release when I've seen them, long before they land. I've always assumed that would be the only way anyone would consider doing it, I'm astonished that it isn't so.

[beardy]

Round here they take to tow in as soon as they release when I've seen them, long before they land.

I dont recall any facility to do this, my memory is that the tow "rope" was just attached to the back of the tug and nothing can be done to it until it lands. The most I can conceive of is an emergency release handle like the glider has but that would just drop the rope to the ground.

[Psamathe]

Round here they take to tow in as soon as they release when I've seen them, long before they land.

I dont recall any facility to do this, my memory is that the tow "rope" was just attached to the back of the tug and nothing can be done to it until it lands. The most I can conceive of is an emergency release handle like the glider has but that would just drop the rope to the ground.

Likewise, never seen anything like that. Rope just trails behind the tug (I assume tug has an emergency release and there are definitely weak links (and they are not too difficult to break). But I've only flown from two clubs using tows - I prefer winch launches (cheaper, more fun ... and you get a few more of them (I think I was at x1.3)).

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

While feeling some pity for the pilot of the Hunter, when there are aircraft crashes they almost always seem to be accompanied by reports on how 'skilled' or 'good' the pilot was (or is if still alive) and how many hours he/she had flown. A report on the helicopter crash in London a couple of years ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21049125.

When there are serious car crashes the newspapers rarely, if ever, tell us how the good the motorists were or are, if anything the faults of the motorist(s) who caused the crash (driving too fast in wet weather, or too close) are pointed out pretty quickly even before an investigation. I don't know what the air accident investigation will find and I know they won't take any account of what the newspapers say, but I also don't think the media should straightaway be reporting how 'good' the pilot is.

Thoughts with the bereaved and the injured.

[Psamathe]

I was just describing the situation with regards to airfields in my locality. In my case it goes beyond one or two individuals. Parish meetings with 50+ people, Parish Council objections, etc. And when one club concerned attended one parish meeting to try and justify their behaviour ... I even got to feel a bit sorry for the guys as they just had not appreciated what had been going on (and apparently still does).

I've got no idea why you'd fail to get action. The CAA are pretty hot on stuff like this, just a single report from one individual can result in a world of pain even when there's no corroborating evidence to suggest they are right.

Maybe they didn't go to the CAA?
...

I don't know. I guess it becomes a balance between risk and retaliation. Village kicked up a fuss about the club one spring and got "pay-back" for the rest of the summer as tugs would take-off towing, stay low, immediately turn to pass over village and then open-up throttle (nosey as they were still very low), then once they've disturbed the village they'd veer back on course to where they actually wanted to go. Every time take-offs were in that direction the village was getting every tug tow low and loud. Fortunately they have now "got over" the fuss that had been raised and now just do normal take-offs putting then both higher and clear of the village. But it makes people think more than twice about complaining to officials.

(Sorry, I'm dragging the thread off topic).

Ian

[Psamathe]

Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations. The interviewer's point was that whatever the cause, accidents clearly do happen so, irrespective of the cause he maintained the CAA should be reviewing procedures to remove/lower than risk now rather than wait ages (by e.g. moving such displays over where there are no people. CAA guy's response was that they rather wanted to stop such accidents (hence waiting for AAIB) whereas interviewer was arguing to act now to reduce risk for public (and there will always be a risk of accidents in these types of display). Interviewer came across better as he was arguing that the particular display should have been carried out over the sea (something I guess cannot be done for all airshows e.g. inland ones).

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations..

I agree he didn't handle the interview well but I think he was from the the British Air Display Association which is going to be entirely guided by what official bodies say. If he'd come out with a whole series of statements which then didn't match up with the AAIB and the CAA he'd look daft. I'm afraid once again this is officious BBC interviewing throwing questions at the wrong person at the wrong time.

[Psamathe]

Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations..

I agree he didn't handle the interview well but I think he was from the the British Air Display Association which is going to be entirely guided by what official bodies say. If he'd come out with a whole series of statements which then didn't match up with the AAIB and the CAA he'd look daft. I'm afraid once again this is officious BBC interviewing throwing questions at the wrong person at the wrong time.

Must have misheard about the organisation he was representing. My impression of the interview was that the interviewee was from the organisation that regulates such air displays and would be responsible for new regulations regarding safety (I never heard the representative suggest "not within our remit"). I felt (from the interview) that he/the appropriate regulator should have been responding along the lines of having an immediate interim review to see what additional procedures should be implemented pending full reports and findings from the official investigations, following which a full review would be carried out. Either that or said that the wrong questions were being directed at the wrong organisation (the "not within our remit").

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations..

I agree he didn't handle the interview well but I think he was from the the British Air Display Association which is going to be entirely guided by what official bodies say. If he'd come out with a whole series of statements which then didn't match up with the AAIB and the CAA he'd look daft. I'm afraid once again this is officious BBC interviewing throwing questions at the wrong person at the wrong time.

Must have misheard about the organisation he was representing. My impression of the interview was that the interviewee was from the organisation that regulates such air displays and would be responsible for new regulations regarding safety (I never heard the representative suggest "not within our remit"). I felt (from the interview) that he/the appropriate regulator should have been responding along the lines of having an immediate interim review to see what additional procedures should be implemented pending full reports and findings from the official investigations, following which a full review would be carried out. Either that or said that the wrong questions were being directed at the wrong organisation (the "not within our remit").

I agree he could have said some of these things - and if the interviewer had not been so full on 'what are you going to change now?' he might have delivered better answers. But I'm afraid the Today programme does like to challenge every interviewee whether it's required or not. If this bloke had said one wrong thing it may have affected how airshows are run without any recourse to the official report. Why would you do that?

[1gunsalute]

I agree he could have said some of these things - and if the interviewer had not been so full on 'what are you going to change now?' he might have delivered better answers. But I'm afraid the Today programme does like to challenge every interviewee whether it's required or not. If this bloke had said one wrong thing it may have affected how airshows are run without any recourse to the official report. Why would you do that?

You might do that because there's an airshow happening next week that intends to run the same risk with other people's lives.
There's a long history of accidents occurring at airshows so it isn't necessary to wait until they find out exactly what fault/error occurred this time.