CAA airshow safety review update

[Truro Model Builder]

Just published: UK Civil Air Display Review: Actions that impact on UK civil air displays in 2016

I really think that Duxford is screwed.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201371%20civil%20air%20display%20review%20actions.pdf

[Jinxman]

hi, tried the link - couldn't get it to work - is this the same thing?

http://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-publishes-action-report-from-ongoing-Air-Display-Review/

cheers

edit - link is on the above page 'Read the action report"

link check (seems to work - might be my browser?)

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201371%20civil%20air%20display%20review%20actions%20eval.pdf

[bentwaters81tfw]

Name me an airfield that doesn't have an access road. DX has been going for 40 years plus. I think only the Firefly and Black 6 came down outside the perimiter. They will have to make changes, but I don't think its screwed. They may exclude certain types, but then again, what about the Reds? They cover a huge chunk of sky, and fall out of it more regularly than other types.

[Glen]

There's no way Highways Agency/train operators are going to accept closure of main roads or railways during a show so I think you may be right about Duxford. RIAT will be interesting with the large crowd in the fields north of the runway . 2.14/2.15 will be interesting for the landowners and who is liable!

[bentwaters81tfw]

Best we shut Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, Brum et al then.

[Truro Model Builder]

There was an L.39 Albatros that overran the runway and ended up on the M11 in 2002 with one fatality in the aircraft, and a T-33 stalled on take off and went into the field at the other end of the runway in 2006 with no deaths. Admittedly neither were airshow related.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Didn't the Albatross have a seat misfire or late ejection? Had he sat tight I think he would have survived.

[Truro Model Builder]

The guy who ejected died; the guy who stayed lived. Not the first time that kind of situation has happened.

[markjames68]

Duxford will be fine i think, they will however have a raft of extra paperwork to submit,shows like blackpool et al may become more popular and larger due to the fact that they are well placed for crowd saftey as the display items are over the sea.

Will be interesting to see what happens at Riat with the big farms, Totterdown and Rhymes etc right on the perimeters that are jammed full every year.

Never was a fan of thise 2 places personally And only in my humble opinion, (im sure some will disagree veciferously)the landowners took the as they charge silly money to camp and i assume it all goes straight in their pockets with nothing to the going to the cause of his annual fortune taking and no thought to safety of those that are overflown,

Wonder if the CAA or other authority has the power to stop them on safety grounds??

Edited January 27, 2016 by Greg B
Swearing removed

[dambuster]

Interesting that they mention the 1952 Farnborough accident, then at 2.15 state

"This should also help raise public understanding that the safest viewing point is always within designated spectator areas provided by the organiser."

Given that there were more fatalities at Farnborough than at Shoreham, this assertion doesn't hold true.

Peter

[Truro Model Builder]

Interesting that they mention the 1952 Farnborough accident, then at 2.15 state

"This should also help raise public understanding that the safest viewing point is always within designated spectator areas provided by the organiser."

Given that there were more fatalities at Farnborough than at Shoreham, this assertion doesn't hold true.

Peter

Farnborough 1952 was the most recent time in the United Kingdom that anybody was killed in a designated spectator area at a British airshow, and the safety measures introduced then have ensured that. In any case, there were more fatalities at Farnborough due to the wreckage striking a densely packed section of the crowd.

[PhantomBigStu]

Airshows are a thing of the past, mark my words, soon as the story becomes front page again once the investigation finishes, can be even if the new rules etc are fine, can bet some dogooder will start a petition which will get 100000 sigs, and the parliament will have to ban airshows......

[dambuster]

Farnborough 1952 was the most recent time in the United Kingdom that anybody was killed in a designated spectator area at a British airshow, and the safety measures introduced then have ensured that. In any case, there were more fatalities at Farnborough due to the wreckage striking a densely packed section of the crowd.

But standing outside the designated spectator area had been safer since prior to 1952, until Shoreham.

We cannot claim that the safety measures have ensured that no-one in a designated spectator area has been killed since 1952, only observe that they have reduced the risk, which is somewhat different. That is why the CAA IMHO should not have used the word 'always'.

Perversely you could argue that the area most exposed to risk is the deignated area as display aircraft will be following filight paths that are similar in a confined area - down the display line. There is far more variability in their flight paths over the surrounding area, hence a lower probability of an aircraft crashing in a given location, hence a lower level of risk.

Peter

[markjames68]

Airshows are a thing of the past, mark my words, soon as the story becomes front page again once the investigation finishes, can be even if the new rules etc are fine, can bet some dogooder will start a petition which will get 100000 sigs, and the parliament will have to ban airshows......

They wouldnt have to ban it, just debate it, the 100000 sigs stand for nothing really, airshows wont be a thing of the past at all, the income and interest from trade and public far outweigh the nearsighted approach to shut them down, they will go on in a more moderated form, just as they went on after the review when many many more sadly died at Ramstien, the same doommongerers said the same back then, the only thing ive reall noteced since is the fact that the display items arent allowed to overfy the crowd now.

Edited January 27, 2016 by markjames68

[Albeback52]

Airshows are a thing of the past, mark my words, soon as the story becomes front page again once the investigation finishes, can be even if the new rules etc are fine, can bet some dogooder will start a petition which will get 100000 sigs, and the parliament will have to ban airshows......

The current restrictions will remain place until the AAIB report is concluded and published. At that point they will be reviewed. I think that is reasonable. As for banning airshows? For what reason. Some phoney excuse about an "unacceptable risk to the public"? You are probably right - there are always some who try this. There was a similar media inspired hoo ha at the time of the accident as I recall. I had a similar argument with one of those proverbial do-gooders (complete with social conscience and heart on sleeve!)." Any public event where there is such an unaceptable risk should be banned immediately" was his argument. I just quoted four words at him "Ibrox,Bradford,Sheffield, Heysel" and then asked if, following his logic about unacceptable risk he would be happy to see a total ban on football matches. They may have had different causes but,the

results were the same. A total of hundreds killed and injured. And yet, where was the outcry to ban THESE events? Funnily enough, my do-gooding friend kind of clammed up at that point!

Only a fool would argue against ensuring safety at an air show but, I do hope that in this health and safety obsessed society at least some common sense will prevail. Having just gone through the preliminary report, it seems to me anyway to be pretty fair and reasonable. I certainly don't agree that Duxford will be "screwed" as one post succintly put. Tht would be a step too far and totally unnecessary. The report does not state that roads etc SHOULD be closed. Provided the organisers submit an acceptable risk assessment and contingency plan subject to the CAA report I do not see any problem.

Allan

Edited January 27, 2016 by Albeback52

[bzn20]

Farnborough has had a few since the DH110.1955 Hunter, 1964 Bulldog,1970 autogyro,1968 Breguet Atlantic flew into a hangar,84 DHC Buffalo.All in the confines of the airfield boundary .Not sure about the '55 Hunter crash TBH.

Like any tragedy/disaster they trot out the "lessons will be learned" .Its not a surprise.For too long there are some,SOME air show pilots and ground crews have forgotten about flight safety,incomplete and / or incorrect recording in servicing documents,signing for aircraft with one or more red line unserviceable components or structure,out of date manuals.Flying outside the aircraft type's envelope and/or overloaded,loops too low etc. the list is endless. They need to be banned anyway.

If this means some airfields will lose an airshow/less airshows because of location/airfield size/ ,its better than having a 'plane out of control landing on a road junction. Safety first, Its the corner stone of the aviation industry. Something happened and things will probably have to change. If nothing changes, Imagine something happening next season , then what? I just hope it doesn't become some blanket health and safety knee jerk reaction and its done in a manner that allows them to continue but safely.

Edited January 27, 2016 by bzn20

[Albeback52]

I think losing an Airshow venue because of the proximity of nearby main roads/railways etc would be a step too far and, totally pointless in any case. No amount of regulation is ever going to eliminate either equipment failure or pilot error. I can understand the reason for further risk assessments though. Have no problem with that but, surely there is a far greater (and daily) risk of accident near one of our major airports. In 1989, a Boeing 737 almost hit the M6 and, in more recent years a BA 777 only just made it into Heathrow before crashing short of the runway. A couple of seconds earlier & it would have hit a very busy road near Hatton Cross. EVen here in Edinburgh, the approach to runway 24 crosses the A90 which is a very busy dual carriageway.

Fortunately, the regulatory authorities have (in my view anyway) always adopted a very measured and reasonable response to any accident

Allan

[JeffreyK]

Only a fool would argue against ensuring safety at an air show but, I do hope that in this health and safety obsessed society at least some common sense will prevail.

I think there's a slightly different causality at work here. I don't think that it's society as a whole that's is health and safety obsessed. It's the blame and claim culture, the "not my fault, how much is in it for me" way of thinking that has taken society by storm that has caused Health and Safety to get out of control because companies, organisations, bodies and corporations need to cover their a**** while insurers ramp up premiums or even refuse to provide cover if they don't.

That I think is the real danger for the future of airshows. No one would argue with improving safety measures, updating regulations or reviewing procedures and I don't think anyone will argue against the good that Health and Safety has achieved in the work place or life in general over the past decades. But It's insurance and lawsuits that now unfortunately seem have the power to bring an end to most things we enjoy. I just hope sanity will prevail in the end.

J

[Albeback52]

I think there's a slightly different causality at work here. I don't think that it's society as a whole that's is health and safety obsessed. It's the blame and claim culture, the "not my fault, how much is in it for me" way of thinking that has taken society by storm that has caused Health and Safety to get out of control because companies, organisations, bodies and corporations need to cover their a**** while insurers ramp up premiums or even refuse to provide cover if they don't.

That I think is the real danger for the future of airshows. No one would argue with improving safety measures, updating regulations or reviewing procedures and I don't think anyone will argue against the good that Health and Safety has achieved in the work place or life in general over the past decades. But It's insurance and lawsuits that now unfortunately seem have the power to bring an end to most things we enjoy. I just hope sanity will prevail in the end.

J

Excellent point. The insurance aspect never occured to me. Rising insurance premiums will of course probably have the knock on effects of higher costs/reduced participation/higher ticket costs/reduced sales/smaller audiences eventually leading to a situation where it will no longer be cost effective to arrange anything but the largest shows. Of course one could always watch any shows that remain from outside the venue but, I expect that option will rapidly be taken away from us as well.

Allan

Edited January 28, 2016 by Albeback52

[robvulcan]

I read a little of the report. All hunters to be permanently banned from flying and all classic jets only allowed to do flypasts. Seems a crazy over reaction to me. Though I am sure there will be someone to remind me how I should think and tell me what I should not say.

Seems a massive insult to Pilots Engineers and Scientists to me. Lets face it accidents happen. Plenty on the Motorways lets ban cars...

The Red Arrows Have crashed a few times recently why are they not banning them too. Also there was a Spitfire crash if I recall surprised they did not ban them too.

Depressing reading. Sure accidents happen but we are mortal and life with no risk is pointless.

[Albeback52]

I read a little of the report. All hunters to be permanently banned from flying and all classic jets only allowed to do flypasts. Seems a crazy over reaction to me. Though I am sure there will be someone to remind me how I should think and tell me what I should not say.

Seems a massive insult to Pilots Engineers and Scientists to me. Lets face it accidents happen. Plenty on the Motorways lets ban cars...

The Red Arrows Have crashed a few times recently why are they not banning them too. Also there was a Spitfire crash if I recall surprised they did not ban them too.

Depressing reading. Sure accidents happen but we are mortal and life with no risk is pointless.

You are obviously referring to paragraphs 5.1 - 5.2 of the review report.However,with respect I think you are misinterpreting what is written. The phrase "until further notice" is by no means the same as "permanent". Also, the grounding of the Hunters is one of the measures that was introduced by the CAA pending conclusion and publication of the AAIB report. These measures will then be reviewed in accordance with the reports recommendations. This is the actual quote from the CAA action report published Monday;

In addition, the CAA is confirming that the measures it put in place in the immediate aftermath of the accident at Shoreham in August 2015 will remain in place until the AAIB's investigation has concluded, at which point they will be reviewed alongside any findings or recommendations made. These measures are:

1. The grounding of all Hawker Hunter aircraft.
2. Ex-military jets operating over land are restricted to fly-pasts only. They are not permitted to perform aerobatics.
3. Air shows subject to enhanced risk assessments

I think therefore we should possibly all refrain from drawing any conclusions until such time as the AAIB report is issued. As far as I am aware, no final date for the report has been announced.Certainly, I think there are bound to be effects on Air shows this year while these restrictions remain in place. As far as the actual types are concerned, I can understand grounding the Hunters for now but, I do however agree that the(albeit temporary?) "flypasts only" rule for other classic jets is O T T and unnecessary. One wonders if the same "flypast only" rule would apply if the accident had involved an operational military jet flown by a military pilot?

Allan

Edited January 28, 2016 by Albeback52

[bentwaters81tfw]

No, Hunters are not permanently banned, they remain grounded whilst the enquiry continues. Other jets are confined to fly pasts and no high energy aerobatics over land until the AAIB have concluded their report, and the CAA have re-examined the present regs.

[robvulcan]

Thanks for that. I missed that. As I said only had a little read of it quickly. Good news its until further notice. That's fair enough.

[alpine_modeller]

Well, I am hoping the news that the Shoreham Hunter pilot was issued a Stop call at Southport the year before for low flying means the CAA stop blaming the Hunter for the accident.

Edited February 2, 2016 by alpine_modeller

[XV107]

Are they blaming the Hunter?

The grounding has to be seen as part of a careful process of making sure that the chances of the accident occurring again are reduced as far as possible. And much as I love the Hunter (as the number of Airfix, Academy, Italeri, Revell and Matchbox F6s, FGA9s & T7s in my stash perhaps demonstrates), I'd rather wait for the AAIB to provide sufficient information to the CAA to demonstrate that the grounding order can be lifted based on a full investigation.

The fact that Andy Hill may have made an error in a previous display (a one-off prior to/including Shoreham? Worrying signs that a trend was developing?) which may or may not have any bearing whatsoever to the accident. As noted about half-way down the page here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35473857- the occurrence at Southport can't necessarily be seen as the trend that some media reports and associated comments appear to think it is. It's hardly a smoking gun.

I'll be honest. I've always suspected that the tragedy at Shoreham will prove to be the result of pilot error, but I don't know. Until the AAIB provide the definitive or near-as-damn-it definitive answer, I'll hold off from saying that Mr Hill was at fault or that the Hunter (as a type, vice the individual airframe) wasn't.