CAA airshow safety review update

[F4u]

Here's the MAA rules on distances.

In Flight. The normal minimum separation between the crowd-line and aircraft displaying in flight, including rotary-wing displays that involve aerobatics, should be 230m. However, where the displaying aircraft is at a speed in excess of 300 KIAS, and has a velocity vector towards a spectator area, this minimum separation should be increased to 450m. For the following aircraft and activities, reduced minimum separations as specified should be permitted:

Hunter is a heavy swept wing aircraft that needs a lot of speed to keep it in the air it has a high landing speed and a high stall speed compared to a Spitfire which if it lost power has more chance of dead sticking into a field which one did in the Kent area (can't remember the full circumstances) and the Buchon had to dead stick into Headcorn with a dead engine so piston engined fighters have more chance of gliding to a safe zone which the Hunter or any other jet has not if you loose power you have serious problems !!

As already has been said AAIB full report has yet to be published as for servicing my idea would be like when your car needs a service ( what ever comes first mileage or date !! )

I think date would be appropriate every year full service !!

Going on the MAA rules I don't think RIAT will be affected but I'm concerned about secondary crowds though ?

And don't you love that saying 'STUNT'

Guy

Edited April 14, 2016 by F4u

[Mike]

I'm feeling a little bit of hostility starting to creep in here, so can we just take a few deep breaths, realise not everyone shares your point of view or is as informed on the subject as you are.

Incidentally - where's the best place to read about the pilot and his recovery? My OH and I were talking about it the other day and I had to admit I didn't know how he was doing.

[bobgpw]

Then why haven't they taken the "safest option" of grounding all Spitfires after last years spate of incidents involving them? Its not as if the question of "are deaths involved or not" is going to be a factor in any answer to the question of "will an inherent issue with the type cause future deaths if this type is allowed to continue flying".

The Hunter has been operated "within tolerably safe limits" for decades - one crash does not change that fact. Just the same as one civil airliner crash does not change the fact that 99% of operators of that civil airliner can operate it perfectly well.

I think the continued grounding of the Hunter is appalling and is in danger of destroying our continued living aviation heritage in this country.

I'm not being pious, far from it, but I do believe that this accident requires us all to be more mindful of the terrible outcomes for those involved in this.

There were people going about their daily business with little concern for what was happening at the air display. They had no interest in it, they were probably more concerned about drunk drivers, people driving whilst using mobile phones or speeding.

In a split second, their lives and those of their families and friends were changed forever and if I was one of those people, I'd want to know why my loved one or friend was killed in such a way. I'd want to make sure that as far as possible, it could never happen again and that all parties (regulator, operator, air show organiser etc.) had taken sensible measures to bring the chance or re-occurrence to as low as reasonably practicable.

Don't forget the survivors of this too. There are 16 people who suffered various physical injuries and many more who will probably suffer emotional and psychological issues as a result. All of these people, demand our utmost attention to this accident too.

You can't compare a 737 or 319 crash to a that involving an vintage ex-military aircraft. At the most basic level, the data that can be gathered from FDR and CVR or from the operator or manufacturers ongoing aircraft health monitoring is going to be infinitely superior to that from a vintage aircraft. There will be opportunity to monitor worldwide trend data, component life cycles, crew fatigue, training, maintenance records, weather data and incident reporting. You'd be able to look at data sets across thousands of aircraft, thousands of flight hours/cycles and there will the opportunity to bring in expert knowledge from across various sectors of the industry.

To the best of my knowledge, the Hunter doesn't have this kind of data available and as a result the CAA have been understandably cautious. I have every hope that the SD will be rescinded and the type will return to the airshow scene.

[Scimitar F1]

Love the piety on here.

Feels to me like a PR knee-jerk reaction to keep Hunters grounded.

😉😉😉 The AAIB are thorough but they have had 7 months. Let us hope that report does not go the way of Chilcot.

[markjames68]

Dont forget theres 2 sides to grounding an aircraft, the Hunter itself may well have been 'fine' at the time of the crash and no airframe issues dierctly attributable to the cause, however, IF in the investigation its found that ground crew wise , maintenance may not have been up to scratch and there were issues that raised their head, they may remain grounded even if theres technically nothing wrong with the airframes airworthiness if it cant be proved that all maintenance across the board on all hunters is up to scratch and done to a suitably high standard

Edited April 14, 2016 by markjames68

[Giorgio N]

Hmm. Surely there must be the same risk of airliners overflying built areas on approach to their airports Heathrow, Gatwick etc. There many roads and populated areas around them where an aeroplane could land on them despite they are not displaying the same way.

All very much knee jerk stuff by the powers that be. Maybe aviation will all come to an end.

Where does one draw a line...

It's not the same kind of risk and an airliner approaching an airport is way safer than a military or ex military type performing aerobatics. First of all airliners are intrinsically safer because of the regulations they have to fulfil to be able to enter service and fly and because they are much less "stressed" than military types. Then there's the fact that while landing is a more dangerous flight phase compared to cruise, it's much safer than aerobatics, where both the machine and the pilot are much more likely to "fail".

Said that, the sheer number of airliners taking off and landing in every airport of the world means that statistically accidents involving damage and loss to people and property on the ground can happen and have happened, in some cases with very heavy losses.

It should be added that regulations exist not only for the aircrafts flying over populated areas but also for constructions located in the proximity of airports. Eliminating accidents completely is impossible but everything is tried to reduce their numbers and effects

[cmatthewbacon]

It took almost two years for the final report and recommendations to be published after the Scottish police helicopter crash. And before anyone asks why all EC135s weren't grounded for that time, it was because they had a very clear idea of what had brought the aircraft down early on, just not why and how it had got into that state...

So thorough is good, and seven months doesn't seem like that long...

bestest,

M.

[Scimitar F1]

The reason for the delay in Glasgow was that they did not know as unfortunately the crew dos not survive.

The Hunter pilot was out of hospital in less than 10 days. If there was a problem with the aircraft they would have advised the MoD that an earlier poster indicated are still flying Hunters. Let us see when the report is published.

[Work In Progress]

You can't compare a 737 or 319 crash to a that involving an vintage ex-military aircraft. At the most basic level, the data that can be gathered from FDR and CVR or from the operator or manufacturers ongoing aircraft health monitoring is going to be infinitely superior to that from a vintage aircraft. There will be opportunity to monitor worldwide trend data, component life cycles, crew fatigue, training, maintenance records, weather data and incident reporting. You'd be able to look at data sets across thousands of aircraft, thousands of flight hours/cycles and there will the opportunity to bring in expert knowledge from across various sectors of the industry.

To the best of my knowledge, the Hunter doesn't have this kind of data available and as a result the CAA have been understandably cautious.

All true, plus the basic and undeniable fact that in comparison to any modern commercial jet the Hunter has an accident rate many, many times worse. It's not Hawker's fault or RR's fault, it's just the nature of early jets that they're much more dangerous than modern ones, and therefore have to be operated conservatively to compensate. All 1950s high performance military jets have poor safety records, which were accepted in military service given the very grim reality of the Cold War threat. Something a generation later with a similar configuration and performance like the Hawk is an order of magnitude safer and more reliable, even comparing the types when they were both in their respective first flushes of youth.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Work In Progress

[F4u]

I'm feeling a little bit of hostility starting to creep in here, so can we just take a few deep breaths, realise not everyone shares your point of view or is as informed on the subject as you are.

Incidentally - where's the best place to read about the pilot and his recovery? My OH and I were talking about it the other day and I had to admit I didn't know how he was doing.

Mike PM sent.

Guy

[Truro Model Builder]

Assuming that the grounding order will be lifted, the name 'Hawker Hunter' is now permanently linked with the Shoreham crash. Because of this it may be that anybody who owns one for air show work may well have a problem in terms of getting bookings for it in this country, and may have to sell it to an overseas owner. It risks becoming a tainted brand, which is very sad given the type's history and achievements.

[F4u]

Ryhmes P&V is closed at RIAT probably due to secondary crowd rules so could effect Totterdown, so this could make things very difficult for other venues where you have roads public areas ect .

Guy

[markjames68]

its not just the P+V at rhymes thats shut, no camping there at all this year, was pretty sure this was going to happen and am very surprised totterdown has decided to go ahead with his camping under the circs, it was bordering on obvious really, apparently riat are opening an official campsite on the old red carpark but reckon even totterdown will be on its last year this year....

[Truro Model Builder]

No doubt the 'official' RIAT campsite will be charging 'official' RIAT prices.

Touch too cynical?

[Truro Model Builder]

This is just ridiculous now.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafshawbury/events/index.cfm

[Kallisti]

This is just ridiculous now.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafshawbury/events/index.cfm

"This thing is terrible! Something must be done!"

"We are doing something".

[Aeronut]

It'll be interesting to see how the new rules affect the first airshow of the season at Abingdon this Sunday. There is a public road at each end of the runway / display line.

[bzn20]

Engineer a breakdown on the Northbound A34 where it crosses the A415, its about 600 yards off (and higher) the end of the runway and dead inline.

Edited April 29, 2016 by bzn20

[Aeronut]

I'll be closer than the A34' I'll be at my usual position, airside talking to the public.

[bzn20]

How was the Abingdon airshow then?

[Truro Model Builder]

Mixed views, it would seem:

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=68554&start=175

[F4u]

I was at Abingdon and must admit some of the displays were distant l think it will be a case of 1000mm lens or a strong pair of binoculars for Farnborough especially for the smaller aircraft.

Guy

Edited May 4, 2016 by F4u

[Jinxman]

Was anyone standing on the roadside at Abingdon, (Honeybottom Lane), this time around?

This is the road at the end of runway 18, (as it was, don't know if it still is.)

I seem to remember there being quite a few people outside the field the last time I visited for a show.

[F4u]

Was anyone standing on the roadside at Abingdon, (Honeybottom Lane), this time around?

This is the road at the end of runway 18, (as it was, don't know if it still is.)

I seem to remember there being quite a few people outside the field the last time I visited for a show

No one was allowed to stand at either end of the runway , one of the roads was closed sorry don't know the name I'm not from the area and the police where moving people on who did try to watch from either end.

Guy

Edited May 4, 2016 by F4u

[bzn20]

Honey bottom Lane is the North end,two roads Barrow Road and a bit further out the A415 Marcham Road at the South end of the Runway.