2002 Ukraine crash decision

[ozzy72]

A military court in Ukraine has jailed two pilots whose plane ploughed into the crowd at an airshow near Lviv in 2002, killing 77 people.
The jet's pilot, Volodymyr Toponar, and his co-pilot Yury Yegorov, who both ejected and survived, were sentenced to 14 years and eight years respectively.
Toponar was found guilty of negligence and violating flight rules.
Two of his senior military officials and a flight security official were also jailed.
Seventy-seven people - including 23 children - died and nearly 300 were wounded at the show in western Ukraine when the Su-27 jet cart-wheeled into the crowds in a ball of flame after a manoeuvre went wrong.
An inquiry into the accident found that the crash happened because the pilots had tried to pull off a risky manoeuvre at a low altitude. Officials in charge were blamed for failing to stop the flight in time and secure a sufficient security zone.
According to AP, Toponar said that he did not blame himself for the deaths. He claimed technical problems and a faulty flight plan were to blame.
As well as the jail term, he was ordered to pay 7.2m hryvnas ($1.4m;

[Craig.]

Ozzy, this was posted just a few topics down. this is a sad desicion, and it sounds like they are trying to jail anyone who had any contact with the aircraft to make it seem like they are doing something.

[ozzy72]

I spotted it just after I'd posted Time for a coffee methinks

[C]

1. Pilot(s)/Back seat chappy should have known better.

2. The real fault lies with the Military and the national aviation authorities for their negligence in allowing such an uncontrolled event to happen. Had they not heard of display safety?

[ozzy72]

Had they not heard of display safety?

Apparently not....

[beaky]

I wonder if they followed the practice of "directing energy away from the spectators", which is a big deal in the US. As for the effectiveness of that policy, I think the spectator-injury record here speaks for itself. Not knowing the details of the crash, I can't judge, but the whole idea is to never, ever, ever do a manuever that will resolve with any aircraft pointed towards the crowd. In the event of a midair, there's always a slim chance the crowd will be in danger, but if a damaged bird is pointed their way, they're in trouble.
 Now I'm wondering how the spectator area was arranged. Far enough away, etc.? Probably not.
 As for the pilot's excuse that the flight plan was faulty, he accepted it before the flight, so he gets a share of the blame, IMHO.
 

[Hagar]

Now I'm wondering how the spectator area was arranged. Far enough away, etc.? Probably not.

From what I've read this was a free informal air show & the crowd were allowed on both sides of the runway. Bear in mind that this took place in the Ukraine in 2002. Most Eastern European countries did not follow the strict public safety measures adopted in the west. For all I know they still don't. Ozzy might be able to elaborate on that.

PS. I believe that air displays were banned in the Ukraine following this incident. Everyone in sight was immediately fired including the chief of the Air Force. Not so long ago they would have been sent to Siberia never to be seen again. I don't understand why it took 3 years to resolve this matter.

[ozzy72]

To the best of my knowledge Doug most of the former Soviet satellites and republics did adopt Western practices on airshow safety (wise considering the poor maintenance record in some of those countries) once the Iron Curtain came down in the hope of attracting tourist dollars/pounds/euros (now). Ukraine and a couple of the poorer republics such as Moldova didn't bother (human life not being worth much there it seems) and so it was only when this happened that anything got done.
All the former Eastern Bloc countries now in NATO have exceptional safety procedures (I think trying to show they're up to it and better than their mentors ) and Croatia, Hungary and Poland probably have some of the best safety measures I've ever seen, but at the same time somehow keep things feeling open and friendly (and the bar reasonably priced )

[C]

[quote]I wonder if they followed the practice of "directing energy away from the spectators", which is a big deal in the US.

[beaky]

Good point about Rammstein (I remember that); I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Americans have some sort of monopoly on common sense (oh God, that's a laugh!! ).
I just don't know much about airshows outside the US...

[Hagar]

There is a certain element of risk to any flying display. I can remember this being pointed out on every ticket in big letters. Flying can be dangerous. You enter here at your own risk. The same with motor racing events.

However many regulations they make regarding crowd safety something unexpected can & probably will go wrong. Fortunately the last tragedy I remember involving fatalities to members of the public in the UK was when the DH 110 broke up in flight at Farnborough in 1952*. Imagine the public outcry if something like that ever happened again.

I've noticed the aircraft getting further & further away from the crowd at many displays in recent years. You will soon need binoculars to see them.

*PS. This was caused by structural failure of a prototype aircraft. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/6/newsid_2981000/2981786.stm John Derry was one of the most experienced test pilots in the world. The Derry Turn named after him is now a standard manoeuvre for display pilots.

[C]

Good point about Rammstein (I remember that); I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Americans have some sort of monopoly on common sense (oh God, that's a laugh!! ).

I think we're very sensibly fairly similar in our regulation of such matters. Having said that, I'm not aware of employees of the Civil Aviation Authority being allowed to take their common sense to work!