Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Hunter crash at Shoreham

what_next wrote:

This has yet to be proven that it was only an “error of judgement”

Sorry, the report has noted that the pilot made several errors. That is in no doubt. Was it criminal with intent? IMO, No. You say that this is to be proven? Only if the CPS brings criminal charges, will it ever be—"Proven:. The examples you site in your last post, are commercial operations, where accidents occurred. This incident was an air show, with private pilots, with Display Authorisation, conducting displays. The site, had been authorised, rightly or wrongly, by the authority. The report again notes numerous changes to this process. I understand the hurt felt by all concerned, but this guy will live with this for the rest of his life. He was after all, highly experienced.

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

BeechBaby wrote:

Was it criminal with intent? IMO, No
Your conclusion may be right but intent is not really the point.

EGTK Oxford

AOC flight crew are subject to more frequent, and possibly more comprehensive, recurrent training, line checks and currency on type – perhaps the same standards should apply to the display community? Also the unfortunate pilot was flight deck crew on a commercial airline, so arguably if these vintage jets required the training and licencing requirements of a type rating, he would have been protected from his mistake by the ‘only two jet type ratings on the licence’ rule under EASA?

The departure from control event appears to have initiated at the top of the loop, am not sure 2500’ would have allowed recovery through an ‘escape manoeuvre’, although when he appeared to pull through into the accelerated stall regime, pushing to unload at this point may have resulted in avoiding loss of life? In effect turning the manoeuvre into a half cuban which is a staple recovery technique?

Enstone (EGTN), Oxford (EGTK)

Obviously I know nothing about aerobatics but if the entry was at the 500ft it was supposed to be at, and he went on to do exactly the same thing, he would have missed the ground by 200-300ft.

It would still have been obvious to all that it was a mega cockup and a narrowly averted disaster and he would have possibly been banned from future displays.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Display aerobatics would typically use a 500 foot floor, and his display authorisation would stipulate a floor – however it may be incorrect to suggest he initiated the manoeuvre below 500 feet as a hard fact – going below the floor while not initiating a manoeuvre is not unheard of – i.e the fly by below 500 feet would be unaccelerated, with pulling into the manoeuvre occurring at the floor height – just saying.

I refer back to earlier in the thread where there are links to Mark Hanna videos – the knowledge from this experienced Hunter pilot should have been codified into an SOP, and the organisers should have requested special access to ‘A’ airspace allowing a safe 5-6,000’ of vertical manoeuvring.

Enstone (EGTN), Oxford (EGTK)

BeechBaby wrote:

The examples you site in your last post, are commercial operations, where accidents occurred. This incident was an air show, with private pilots,…

I am pretty much certain that he did not perform his display in return for a hot meal and a free drink. He got some kind of remuneration, and be it only to be allowed to fly those vintage jets for free – something I am sure most contributors to this forum would give an arm and a leg to do. And as I understand it, this airshow was a commercial event where people paid for entry tickets. So not private in my view. Anyway, there were rules and limitations set up beforehand which he did not observe. The consequences should be the same for anyone.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want to see that man burned. I don’t know him personally, but I am pretty sure that this event ruined his life even without getting him a criminal record. But still I expect something like “universal justice”. When I forget to switch on the “fasten seat-belts” sign and one of our passengers gets a nosebleed because of that, I will be dragged to court, convicted (100% certain!), lose my job and existence and have a criminal record for “endangering the safety of an aircraft and it’s passengers” and “mayhem” (at least here in Germany). So I don’t see him getting away without anything.

Last Edited by what_next at 05 Mar 20:42
EDDS - Stuttgart

I guess that some of “mainland Europe” has a lot stricter justice system, and I don’t for a moment doubt that if I landed in a certain country after some transgression they would lock me up and just leave me there for a couple of days, but if I say that I get jumped on

I don’t know if this guy will get prosecuted but it is IMHO very likely. But what is certain is that unless he has the benefit of some high level “connections” the CAA does want to bust him, because he made them look really hopeless as regulators, AND they are going to be very careful in collecting the evidence for it (hence the huge report, for example). UK law enforcement has a long and colourful history of “criminals” getting away because the prosecution screwed up, mishandled the evidence, etc, and the press loves digging it up, so nowadays the powers to be are a lot more careful in cases where they really want to get somebody. If he gets prosecuted, he will have top grade defence at public expense which could easily run to millions in legal fees (lawyers love these big cases) so the job needs to be done really carefully.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

BeechBaby wrote:

Sorry, the report has noted that the pilot made several errors. That is in no doubt. Was it criminal with intent?

I dont think manslaughter by gross negligence “requires” a criminal act to be involved. The essenetial test is that the actions were in gross disregard for the life and safety of others, the difficulty being what constitutes gross disregard. The case of the anaesthetist that didnt notice the tube had come out of the patients throat met the criteria. In the absence of FDR (and without specific reference to this incident) the prosecution has got to prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened in the cockpit at the time of the incident. In a single pilot operation performing high energy manouevers (and without specifc reference to this incident) it may even be difficult to establish if the pilot had greyed out in the absence of the pilot being able to recount events.

Peter,

Your understanding of the Legal Aid system is, sadly, very out of date and very inaccurate.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Peter wrote:

the CAA does want to bust him, because he made them look really hopeless as regulators, AND they are going to be very careful in collecting the evidence for it (hence the huge report, for example).

You have stated twice now that the long report is because the CAA wants to cover its back. But is the AAIB really part of the CAA in the UK?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top