Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Hunter crash at Shoreham

LeSving wrote:

Pilots do screw up from time to time. It is inevitable, we are humans, not machines. The only thing we can do is to minimize the risk by putting at least two of them in the same cockpit and let them fly in a predictable and planned manner from A to B, leaving most of the flying to automated systems and ground control.

It is inevitable that pilots screw-up. It is not inevitable that they do it into a number of uninvolved individuals, going about their own business, 180m away from the end of the designated display line.

LeSving wrote:

But if that probability is one in a billion or less, you have serious mental issues if that bothers you.

When you choose to participate in aviation, as a passenger on a commercial aircraft, the Acceptable Level of Safety (ie the risk of there being a fatality) is generally accepted being in the area of 1.55 × 10 -8 per flight hour. This is an international recognised ‘standard’. If I were a cyclist or a wedding chauffeur going about my normal business on a Saturday afternoon (ie not participating in aviation, at all), I would expect the risk to be far less.

LeSving wrote:

The cause of the accident is the pilot screwed up, plain and simple.

You just don’t get it. How about we reset absolutely everything and just let people carry on as before? Alternatively, perhaps we should be clever and mitigate the risks?

Last Edited by Dave_Phillips at 04 Mar 15:56
Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

A very similar accident occured in August 2000 when Ted Girdler an Ex Red Arrows pilot flew into the sea off the South Coast. Fortunately, there were no casualties outside of the aeroplane however; the cause was exactly the same. Many people are referring to the height of the aircraft at the bottom of the loop, but at that time it was stalled and not producing any lift so could not pull out no matter what. The aircraft was too low at the top of the loop giving it little chance of completing the manoeuvre in the space available. In this position the pilot has the option to escape but the display is thrown away, so there is a pressure to continue rather than do the safe thing. Once the aircraft is in the vertical position there is no way out other than to pull and as we all know the stall speed rises with wing loading and once the aircraft is stalled the radius of turn increases rapidly. An RAF Phantom did exactly the same thing practicing for the RAF Abingdon Airshow in 1988, so in almost 30 years the lesson has not been learned.

what_next wrote:

What puzzles me most in this case is that the surviving pilot is still a free man.

Can I ask why you say that? There was no criminal intent. No criminality. This was an accident, pure and simple. The AAIB, did it’s job in determining the causal effects, and from that we should know where we go in the future.

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 05 Mar 17:43
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

BeechBaby wrote:

Can I ask why you say that?

Because reckless (the degree of which needs of course to be determined by a court) behavior of an individual caused the death of 12 persons. There are numerous precedents where, both in the UK and in other countries, where criminal charges were brought against the pilots. Even in cases without victims like for example https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1991/1991%20-%201236.html or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378 .

When I kill a dozen people with my car I will have to face a charge of manslaughter. For the first time ever, two reckless drivers who killed an innocent bystander were charged with and convicted for murder just this week in Berlin. Why should that be different when someone flies a plane?

Last Edited by what_next at 05 Mar 17:59
EDDS - Stuttgart

BeechBaby wrote:

Can I ask why you say that? There was no criminal intent. No criminality. This was an accident, pure and simple. The AAIB, did it’s job in determining the causal effects, and from that we should know where we go in the future.

Manslaughter can be committed by criminal negligence which doesn’t require the same mens rea (guilty intent) as murder ie intent to kill.

EGTK Oxford

what_next wrote:

Because reckless (the degree of which needs of course to be determined by a court) behavior

Sorry, but where in the report did it state that the pilot was, “reckless”. Secondly, the police gather the facts, and then prepare a report to the CPS. The CPS then decide if it wishes to bring criminal charges. The CPS will only bring criminal charges, if they deem an act of ‘Criminality’, occurred.

Remember, the police, and the CPS ask themselves, is there evidence that a criminal act occurred? Can we successfully prosecute in a court? I am not sure this pilot wilfully conducted a criminal act. He made an error of judgement, which hundreds do, day in, day out.

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 05 Mar 18:17
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

BeechBaby wrote:

Sorry, but where in the report did it state that the pilot was, “reckless”.

I intended to write “negligent”.

BeechBaby wrote:

He made an error of judgement, which hundreds do, day in, day out.

This has yet to be proven that it was only an “error of judgement”. That pilot had been an instructor in the airforce and on that basis been issued his display permit. One can expect that such a qualified pilot should be able to observe the limits (minimum display altitude, display area, etc.) and verify that he flies his manouvers at the correct speed and altitude. Commencing the figure at 185ft instead of 500ft and 310kt instead of 350kt can hardly be called an error of judgement. Busting his lower altitude limit alone consists of a violation for which every single civilian pilot like you and me would have to stand trial any day.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Manslaughter by gross negligence requires a duty of care (fairly clear here), a breach of that duty, and gross negligence that would justify a criminal conviction. Police and CPS will have to decide if there was gross negligence.

EGTK Oxford

JasonC wrote:

and gross negligence that would justify a criminal conviction.

He can consider himself lucky then that this happened in the UK. Elsewhere any degree of negligence is sufficient for a criminal conviction after people lost their lives.
I remember the accident in Milan Linate where the crew of a Citation jet lost their way in dense fog and entered the runway in front of a departing MD87 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linate_Airport_disaster). Four officials (two from the airport, two from ATC) were sentenced to prison up to eight years over that. Or the accident of Contactair/Lufthansa Flight 5634 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_CityLine_Flight_5634) where the crew of a Dash 8 accepted a late swingover at Charles de Gaulle and crashed on short final, killing four passengers. The surviving captain spent six months in prison for manslaughter.

On every single approach that I fly I am expected to oberserve certain limits. E.g. an approach gate at 1000ft above threshold elevation by which seveal stabilisation criteria must be met. If I continue the approach despite not fulfilling those criteria and cause damage to people and property as a result I will autmatically face criminal prosecution. Just like every other commercial pilot in the world. Why should that be different in this case?

Last Edited by what_next at 05 Mar 19:27
EDDS - Stuttgart

@what_next, for the avoidance of doubt I am not expressing a view on whether any crime has been committed but you need to separate a breach of aviation regs (which can be a crime) and a manslaughter convitction which largely what we are discussing. They are linked however in that if it can be shown that a pilot departed significantly from the performance expected of a display pilot then that could obv count On whether it is seen as gross negligence.

EGTK Oxford
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top