Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59

Thread: Plane crash at Shoreham, UK airshow.

  1. #41
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    What? Control surface failure must be the least common cause.
    1) Context, Context, Context....a rule to raise the minimum altitude for airshows was mentioned in this thread...my context was, that higher altitude gives planes more latitude to deviate sideways (when something bad happens) into the crowd instead of crashing behind the flight line...

    ...I do not think that has any relevance to this crash.

    2) Ummm...I think control failures are fairly common in air show crashes...not so much fighter jets, but when you see those hot little aerobatic planes crashing while appearing to be out of control...I can think of several of those where the control surface failure was visible in the film- so I dare say it's not uncommon.

    (And would repeat your words from above, that the plane in this incident seemed to be functioning quite well and dutifully responded as it was driven into a situation where it could not avoid ground contact.)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  2. #42
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    91

    Default

    And so it is the 'nanny state' wins...

    I feel for the families who lost loved ones, but surely sanity must prevail.

    The pilot was negligent/made a mistake/was incapacitated/was a terrorist/had an in flight failure/etc. and the whole of aviation pays.

    Where I live it is against the law to leave a child alone in a car, why? because 1 individual did this and cooked his kiddie while they went to the casino for nn hours - these don't need to be laws, it's (un)common sense

    Remember when you got a knife and fork with your airline meal? And shoes weren't weapons of mass destruction???

    What did we used to do in the bad old days???

  3. #43
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vaztr View Post
    And so it is the 'nanny state' wins...
    Restrictions exist to protect smart people from the recklessness, carelessness, indifference or just plain stupidity of people who don't really think very well. This is why we have things like speed limits, health codes, wiring codes, gun control, animal control and (hopefully soon) drone control.

    But restrictions on doing asinine things with an airplane over a populated area...? Naaaaany Staaate.... Naaaaany Staaate....

  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865

    Default

    That's one perspective.

    Here's other perspective: many 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.

    And another: many regulations exist because legislators are constantly being bombarded with people trying to make this, that, and the other thing illegal, and sometimes they give in for no good reason other than to make the whiny people go away. And/or because they "were sent there to do something" therefore they have to do something... even if it's the wrong thing.

    I live in a state where it used to be illegal to sell donut holes, it's still illegal to kiss in public on Sundays (please explain to me how a dumb person doing that could cause harm to a smart person or anyone else), and it's illegal to do ANY of your own plumbing work. A homeowner cannot legally even change a washer in a faucet.... seriously!

    I actually consider myself a liberal and think there is a legitimate place for some regulations to protect people against the ill-considered or deliberate harmful acts of others. And I think maybe 10% of regulations fall into that category. The others? Not so much.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  5. #45
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    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.

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865

    Default

    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.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  7. #47
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    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?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    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.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  9. #49
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,874

    Default

    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
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    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.

  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HalcyonDays View Post
    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.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjwk View Post
    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.

  13. #53
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,874

    Default

    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.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  14. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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

  15. #55
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjwk View Post
    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.

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    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.

  18. #58
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leftseat86 View Post
    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

  19. #59
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Pilot acquitted based on cognitive impairment arguments.

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •