The end of Shoreham?

[ozzy72]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-39105085

How will this affect airshows near main roads around the country I wonder?

[Hawkeye07]

From the different articles I have read it appears to me like the full responsibility for the crash goes to the pilot. Too low an altitude for the maneuver, possibly confused about which aircraft he was flying (speculation somewhat), not briefing the airshow organizers on the planned maneuvers. These are all pilot related. I haven't been to an airshow here in the States for a while but the last I heard all aerobatic maneuvers were supposed to be done over the airfield. That minimized any risk to the general public. And for the pilot to say he doesn't remember the accident I think is a ploy. I've experienced a couple of very close calls years ago and I can still recall each scenario in minute detail. That crash is the stuff nightmares are made of.

[C]

From the different articles I have read it appears to me like the full responsibility for the crash goes to the pilot. Too low an altitude for the maneuver, possibly confused about which aircraft he was flying (speculation somewhat), not briefing the airshow organizers on the planned maneuvers. These are all pilot related.

It's not that simple. The report also brings in supervisory and planning issues and interestingly the onus potentially on the aircraft owner/operator to ensure the pilot is fit, current and able to conduct a safe display.

And for the pilot to say he doesn't remember the accident I think is a ploy. I've experienced a couple of very close calls years ago and I can still recall each scenario in minute detail. That crash is the stuff nightmares are made of.

You've survived 250-300mph plane crashes then? It's not a ploy - it's a miracle he survived (albeit in intensive care for several weeks). He's been interviewed under close medical supervision and with expert medical guidance.

[Hawkeye07]

""It's not that simple. The report also brings in supervisory and planning issues and interestingly the onus potentially on the aircraft owner/operator to ensure the pilot is fit, current and able to conduct a safe display.""

It's solely the pilot's responsibility to stay current. And to insure he is fit to fly. Who else can determine if he's fit other than a medical examiner?
To say it's the owner/operators responsibility sounds like baby sitting doesn't it?

I would think their responsibility begins and ends with one statement "Is the aircraft airworthy?"
That statement implies "The aircraft is maintained IAW applicable -current- publications and has been found to be airworthy at this time"?

I just read through the entire Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) report and related documents again. Fascinating reading. From what I gathered the biggest maintenance problem was with the ejection seat cartridges service life and it's a problem for all the swept wing ex-military jet aircraft.

According to what I read in the CAA side of things the supervisory and planning issues were required "check off" prior to issuing approval for the event but some of the CAA wording was ambiguous and that needed clarification.

And for the pilot to say he doesn't remember the accident I think is a ploy. I've experienced a couple of very close calls years ago and I can still recall each scenario in minute detail. That crash is the stuff nightmares are made of.

""You've survived 250-300mph plane crashes then? It's not a ploy - it's a miracle he survived (albeit in intensive care for several weeks). He's been interviewed under close medical supervision and with expert medical guidance.""

Actually,The pilot was interviewed on seven separate occasions by the AAIB after the accident. Because of his injuries,
these interviews were conducted in accordance with restrictions advised by his doctors. (AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT 1/2017 Pg 23 of 452 1.1.1 Background)

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT 1/2017
PG 84 of 452
1.13.1 The pilot was not aware of any pre-existing medical condition and toxicology
did not reveal the presence of drugs or alcohol in his system that may have
contributed to the accident. He received serious injuries as result of the accident.
He was treated by a doctor and nurse at the scene. He was described by
the doctor as “fully aware of what was going on around him and not confused
in any way”.

"He was fully aware of what was going on..." right after the crash. I still say that having no knowledge of the accident is a ploy. Why?
BBC News..."Mr Hill, 52, from Hertfordshire, has been the subject of a manslaughter investigation by Sussex Police and was interviewed under caution."
It's called Cover Your Own Butt.

"You've survived 250-300mph plane crashes then..."
Nope, you're right, he has me beat by approximately 120mph. He bellied in at 258.9 mph while my ride was at 138 mph. But mine was at sea in the back end of an aircraft {Lockheed P-3A}with no ejection seats installed. 46 years later I still have the scars from the gash on my forehead and the hole in my left knee. Makes for a good Bar story though.

[C]

It's solely the pilot's responsibility to stay current. And to insure he is fit to fly. Who else can determine if he's fit other than a medical examiner?
To say it's the owner/operators responsibility sounds like baby sitting doesn't it?
.

I say again, it isn't that simple. The pilot is operating the aircraft of behalf of an owner or an organisation, who have received money in return for the aircraft being booked to appear at the show - and in the U.K. This is probably the case with about 85-95% of display aircraft; there are few owner/pilot displays items. Therefore there is an element of corporate responsibility (certainly in this day and age) to ensure that the person they have selected to fly the aircraft at said display is fit, current and competent. The owner of the aircraft is potentially just as liable as the pilot.

[expat]

It is very interesting that when an aircraft crashes in such circumstances, people considerer it to be only the pilots fault, but when the same people crash their cars, they immediately hire a lawyer and sue the car manufacturer as it was the cars fault...............A simplistic view I know, but the similarities are their. Whist the crash remains the pilots fault, to low, too slow in short form, the fault of the deaths has to be also the fault of the organisers of the show and the owners of the aircraft. Fact is the crash is irrelevant, it happens several times a year at displays. Had the correct procedures been followed the aircraft would have crashed in open ground and not on a public road.

Matt