Plane crash at Shoreham, UK airshow.

[flashcrash]

Pilot acquitted based on cognitive impairment arguments.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-47495885

[flashcrash]

It really seems like a bad decision made in the moment.

The pilot is currently standing trial at the Old Bailey charged with 11 counts of manslaughter through gross negligence, and one count of endangering an aircraft. New footage of the crash made available to the jury and edited appropriately for the public.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-engla...-shown-to-jury

[Leftseat86]

Do you really need an altimeter at all to tell that you are 5 and not 500 ft AGL???

Right? I mean, looking at the videos...he was so obviously at or near 200ft over the ground when he went into the maneuver. Maybe he thought that with his speed he would pull into the climb and regain a safety cushion of altitude before pulling back through the full loop? In that case a quick glance of the altimeter would be key to make sure you had that safety margin. It really seems like a bad decision made in the moment. Kind of like that Thunderbirds crash, though that was the AGL/MSL swap beforehand.

[sjwk]

Apparently two police officers stationed on the cordon after the crash are being investigated for taking selfies at the scene and posting them on social media with inappropriate comments...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34184963

[Evan]

Initial report shows no abnormalities with the plane before the crash.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34156681
Report: https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...015_G-BXFI.pdf

Looks like a 0-0 ejection with a non 0-0 ejection seat.

[sjwk]

Initial report shows no abnormalities with the plane before the crash.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) report said cockpit footage showed the plane "responding to the pilot's control inputs". It also said pilot Andy Hill was thrown clear of the aircraft during the later part of the crash on 22 August.

The AAIB said it was not clear whether Mr Hill initiated his ejection. The 51-year-old pilot is currently in a serious but stable condition in hospital.
The report says the Hawker Hunter's canopy was released at the initial impact. At this time fuel and fuel vapour was released and then ignited.
The jet split into four parts and both Mr Hill and his seat were thrown clear off the cockpit.

The report states: "The investigation continues to determine if the pilot attempted to initiate ejection or if the canopy and pilot's seat were liberated as a result of impact damage to the cockpit."

The AAIB's report also revealed there was no "blackbox" flight recorder on the vintage jet, however, there were two cameras positioned in the cockpit.
It revealed: "To date, no abnormal indications have been identified [from the footage]. "Throughout the flight, the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34156681
Report: https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...015_G-BXFI.pdf

[brianw999]

Considering how much taxpayers money and lottery money is thrown at various moneywasting projects it's an absolute tragedy that the Vulcan cannot be kept in the air. It makes me ashamed to call myself British.

[HalcyonDays]

Sadly the Vulcan has its permit to fly withdrawn at the end of this season already due to support from the companies responsible for maintaining engines and systems being withdrawn.

Yes, I know, there are doubtless more than a few in the CAA happy with that.

[sjwk]

With the Vulcan still trolling around, they can't be too careful.

Sadly the Vulcan has its permit to fly withdrawn at the end of this season already due to support from the companies responsible for maintaining engines and systems being withdrawn.

[HalcyonDays]

The ban on low level makes sense, but why a ban on well maintained older aircraft ? especially when you consider the brand new Air France Airbus A320 that crashed at Mulhouse–Habsheim Airport while demonstrating low and slow flight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

I don't think it has anything to do with the age of the aircraft. Plenty of brand new airliners crash, while there are numerous front line military aircraft (including many displaying at air shows) which are many decades old (some not much younger than the Hunter). I'm sure it's more to do with issues like pilot recency, air show procedures and/or approval process etc. Plus this is the second fatal civilian so-called 'vintage' jet down in a month in the UK, so some sort of reaction or review is inevitable and perhaps justifiable.

With the Vulcan still trolling around, they can't be too careful.

[brianw999]

The ban on low level makes sense, but why a ban on well maintained older aircraft ? especially when you consider the brand new Air France Airbus A320 that crashed at Mulhouse–Habsheim Airport while demonstrating low and slow flight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

[elaw]

are you allowed to buy Big Gulps up there?

This week? Yes, I think so. Next week... who knows?

No happy hours though because apparently those kill people. I've never quite understood how.

[3WE]

Because a lot of people would like to legislate airshows out of existence because they're "dangerous". And as everyone (of a certain mindset) knows, danger = unhappiness.

They're pretty closely related to (and often the same people as) the ones who want to close all the small airports because of all those "dangerous" small airplanes. And once that's done it'll be time for the "dangerous" medium-sized airplanes to go, followed by the horrible awful large airplanes.

Then we'll all have to drive and get killed and injured at 100x the rate.

AND, spectacular, flaming, unplanned death (sorry to be factual) needs to be regulated much more than boring, every-day mundane death...(or at least much more promptly).

...then again, are you allowed to buy Big Gulps up there?

[elaw]

Because a lot of people would like to legislate airshows out of existence because they're "dangerous". And as everyone (of a certain mindset) knows, danger = unhappiness.

They're pretty closely related to (and often the same people as) the ones who want to close all the small airports because of all those "dangerous" small airplanes. And once that's done it'll be time for the "dangerous" medium-sized airplanes to go, followed by the horrible awful large airplanes.

Then we'll all have to drive and get killed and injured at 100x the rate.

[Evan]

Here's other perspective: certain regulations exist because certain delusional people think that it's possible to legislate all unhappiness out of life and if you do so everyone will be happy all the time.

Very true but what does that have to do with this?

The decision to place a restriction on vintage planes illustrates how those whom we elect based on their charisma to create our legislation often know nothing about what they are legislating and have no interest in learning.