CAA airshow safety review update

[F4u]

Maybe Farnborough should put the crowd at Blackbush !!!!

I'm wondering what changes RIAT will impose ? as they come under MAA rules but MAA will take on board CAA changes and recommendations hopefully they will release a statement if any changes are made.

Guy

Edited March 28, 2016 by F4u

[F4u]

Another update from Peter Teichman ( Hangar 11 )

https://www.facebook.com/Hangar11Collection/posts/685852481555042

Guy

[Truro Model Builder]

Another update from Peter Teichman ( Hangar 11 )

https://www.facebook.com/Hangar11Collection/posts/685852481555042

Guy

And there, ladies and gents, is the reality of this situation.

[JohnT]

It comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone who deals with Government in its various guises to see yet another example of legislation passed in haste to address a perceived problem which in fact is then incapable of implementation due to a lack of infrastructure to deal with it. Further there are usually also consequences which the legislators were ignorant of or simply willfully blind to.

The list is long and I will refrain of adding examples here as it may well take the posts off topic. Without criticising the legislation in this case or commenting on an industry that I am not qualified in I can offer an opinion that to set up a regulatory framework that is compulsory and then fail to adequately resource the licencing and supervisory roles is nothing short of pathetic and whoever is in charge should be disciplined. He would in private industry but it seems that at certain government levels (particularly dealing with new legislation) ignorance of subject and incompetence are job qualifications.

There should be a rule for all legislation in that no legislation should be passed unless it can be demonstrated that it is better to have that legislation than not.

[Latinbear]

This may appear off topic but bear with me.

I recently bought a book titled: "Elon Musk - How the billionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla is shaping our future" and am happily ploughing through it.

Given the topic of this thread Musk's comment below struck a chord with me hence my quoting it below.

The context is that the author refers to an argument Musk had with an FAA official about the extensive paperwork involved (and consequent time delay) in the simple process of changing a filter on one of his rockets. Musk is then quoted as saying "There is a fundamental problem with regulators. If a regulator agrees to change a rule and something bad happens, they could easily lose their career. Whereas if they change a rule and something good happens, they don't even get a reward. So, it's very asymmetric. It's then very easy to understand why regulators resist changing the rules. It's because there's a big punishment on one side and no reward on the other. How would any rational person behave in such a scenario?"

Post-Shoreham there have of course been the rule changes but I think we can all understand his point.

I also looked at the link to the comments on safety by Farnborough's organisers and my immediate thought was the only truly safe airshow is on in which there is no flying.

Welcome to the future.

[jasman71]

Shoreham crash: Air show stunt and crowd regulations tightened

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36038793

A linky to a BBC report, as they are reporting it on the tv this morning. The price increases could see the end of some smaller shows, and I suspect the requirement to fly higher and further away won't go down well with some.

[RichardPrice]

I read that this morning and a couple of questions came to mind...

Increasing the distance between the display line and crowd line at civil shows if they were "previously less than those in place for military displays"

Does that mean that airshows such as RIAT aren't affected?

These measures saw Hawker Hunter jets grounded,

Why are Hunters still grounded when there was no problems found with the aircraft itself, with the focus being on the pilots actions?

If the Hunter restrictions are not removed soon, we may find that a lot of airworthy Hunters won't fly again as the cost of bringing them out of long term storage and pilot concurrency certification will be far too high for most operators. Keeping them grounded unduly will most likely kill the Hunter long term in the UK.

[Agent K]

Why are Hunters still grounded when there was no problems found with the aircraft itself, with the focus being on the pilots actions?

The accident report hasn't been published yet so you can't say that and, therefore, that is why they remain grounded.

[RichardPrice]

The accident report hasn't been published yet so you can't say that and, therefore, that is why they remain grounded.

This was released in September 2015 -

Footage from cockpit cameras in the vintage jet involved in the Shoreham disaster has revealed the aircraft showed “no abnormal indications” during the flight, according to air crash investigators.

The interim report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) also noted that the video showed the 1950s Hawker Hunter jet “appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs”.

I think its unreasonable to continue to ground every single Hunter in the UK, especially when there are no indications of a fault with this particular aircraft, or a design fault with the type in general.

Neither the Biggen Hill Spitfire crash three weeks before Shoreham nor the Woodchurch Spitfire crash two weeks after Shoreham resulted in every Spitfire in the UK being grounded. Grounding the Hunters was a knee jerk reaction, and continues to be one. The longer they stay grounded, the fewer will return to flight if the grounding order is lifted.

[Agent K]

This was released in September 2015 -

I think its unreasonable to continue to ground every single Hunter in the UK, especially when there are no indications of a fault with this particular aircraft, or a design fault with the type in general.

Neither the Biggen Hill Spitfire crash three weeks before Shoreham nor the Woodchurch Spitfire crash two weeks after Shoreham resulted in every Spitfire in the UK being grounded. Grounding the Hunters was a knee jerk reaction, and continues to be one. The longer they stay grounded, the fewer will return to flight if the grounding order is lifted.

But the full AAIB report has yet to be published hence my correct answer to your question, that is why they remain grounded. I wasn't defending the rights or wrongs of the decision, just answering your question straightforwardly. Process is process and has to be followed.

These comparisons are not good ones. Nobody, especially the public, were hurt at all in these, Shoreham is a far more serious and far reaching investigation.

Would I like to see Hunters flying ASAP, of course I would, but I fully appreciate the AAIB process, that is I think it's fair to say, the best in the world.

[bobgpw]

I am in agreement with Agent K.

As the AAIB investigation progresses, there may well be a point at which they can conclude that SD-2015/003 can be removed. However, until that point is reached, in my view it is correct that the aircraft remain grounded.

As someone that works in the aviation industry and has direct experience of dealing with the AAIB, I can assure you that the investigation will be thorough. Defaulting to the safest option (grounding the Hunter) was not a knee jerk response. It was the correct decision and remains so until it can be shown that the aircraft can be operated within tolerably safe limits.

If no Hunters return to flight after the restriction is lifted, then so be it. That will be a commercial decision taken by the operators.

I wouldn't want anyone else to suffer what the families of the victims of this horrendous accident must have been through.

[Agent K]

Thanks bobgpw and likewise I too am someone who has worked for many years in aviation and closely with the AAIB on a number of occasions. No decisions are taken lightly and you can be guaranteed of the most thorough investigation which, ultimately, is what we would all like to see.

[RichardPrice]

But the full AAIB report has yet to be published hence my correct answer to your question, that is why they remain grounded. I wasn't defending the rights or wrongs of the decision, just answering your question straightforwardly. Process is process and has to be followed.

These comparisons are not good ones. Nobody, especially the public, were hurt at all in these, Shoreham is a far more serious and far reaching investigation.

Would I like to see Hunters flying ASAP, of course I would, but I fully appreciate the AAIB process, that is I think it's fair to say, the best in the world.

I'm not being belligerent specifically to you, but there are no CAA or AAIB rules which require waiting until the final report to be published for a grounding to be lifted. If this was a Boeing 737 grounding we are talking about, the restriction on 737 operation in the UK would have been lifted the moment it was determined that there was no inherent issue with the type, and from the look of the interim report the AAIB and the CAA have determined that.

And whether bystanders were hurt or not is immaterial - if there is no issue with the type in any of the cases I highlighted then the chances of further bystander injury occurring from further failure is the same in all cases. So why the grounding of one type and not the other? The Hunter was grounded immediately after the crash (even while the wreckage was still being recovered), regardless of there being evidence or not of an issue with the type, but no grounding was considered at all after the two crashes I highlight, even as an immediate precaution.

As someone that works in the aviation industry and has direct experience of dealing with the AAIB, I can assure you that the investigation will be thorough. Defaulting to the safest option (grounding the Hunter) was not a knee jerk response. It was the correct decision and remains so until it can be shown that the aircraft can be operated within tolerably safe limits.

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.

[Panzer Vor!!!]

You're missing the point

The Hunter had being involved in a accident for which there is no explanation as to the cause

The Spits pilots may have put up their hands and admitted making a mistake or the cause is obvious

There could be a hidden flaw in the Hunter that no one suspects and until the authorities are sure it's not blame it's grounded

[RichardPrice]

You're missing the point

The Hunter had being involved in a accident for which there is no explanation as to the cause

The Spits pilots may have put up their hands and admitted making a mistake or the cause is obvious

There could be a hidden flaw in the Hunter that no one suspects and until the authorities are sure it's not blame it's grounded

No I am not missing the point at all, and in one of the two cases I highlighted there was a mechanical failure which resulted in the crash.

I maintain that there was a very different approach to the two crashes, and personally I believe that is entirely down to the CAA and AAIB engaging in PR rather than informed decision making.

If this particular Hunter had crashed in a field and not killed anyone, do you think it would have resulted in the same grounding? I don't. Air crash history in the UK shows that it typically won't. But this one crashed on a busy road, killing people, so the CAA had to be seen to be doing something and grounded the type.

[cmatthewbacon]

"Footage from cockpit cameras in the vintage jet involved in the Shoreham disaster has revealed the aircraft showed “no abnormal indications” during the flight, according to air crash investigators.

The interim report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) also noted that the video showed the 1950s Hawker Hunter jet “appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs”.

And if the aircraft went on to crash thanks to a fault, revealed later by the full in-depth investigation, despite showing "no abnormal indications" and "responding to the control inputs", then it would be colossally stupid,. not to mention negligent and unprofessional, to have cleared the aircraft to fly before having received the final report. The AAIB is VERY CLEAR on its website about what exactly the scope and remit of the interim reports are, and what they aren't. OK, it may be highly unlikely that it was a fault in the aircraft, but not 100% certain, so why on earth would you pre-empt the process that is designed to come to an accurate determination and recommendations...?

bestest,

M.

[Aeronut]

Its only the civil registered Hunters that are currently grounded, Military registered ones are still flying. There was one being operated by ETPS out of Boscombe only last week.

The CAA's report discusses the problem of maintaining ex military aircraft on a flying hours basis when their flying hours in civil ownership take months/years to accrue when military operations would clock those hours up in days / weeks.

[Work In Progress]

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".

Because safety regulation should be, and in this case is, done with regard to proportionality, which means considering both the likelihood and the effect of an incident. A typical Hunter crash is vastly more damaging than a typical Spitfire crash. I went through this on another thread last year - to reiterate...

**

The reason that the CAA has suspended aerobatic displays in jets is because the scope for damage is much greater than with smaller, slower, lighter types. All aviation regulation has always been based on the reality that the heavier, the faster, the more complex an aircraft, the more heavily regulated its design, operation, maintenance and crewing need to be.

That's because the risks for bystanders on the ground are not the same for an SE5a or Tiger Moth accident as for a Hunter accident, and that's a question of arithmetic rather than opinion.

Even comparing a Hunter with a high-performance piston fighter like a Bearcat as someone did a few pages back, the inescapable fact is that a Hunter accident is going to hit whatever it hits with approximately 5x the kinetic energy of a Bearcat suffering a similar accident, and will be carrying somewhere between two and three times the quantity of fuel. In broad terms it will do 5x the amount of damage to anything it hits.

Hunter: empty weight approx 12500 lb, display weight approx 18,000 lb

Bearcat: empty weight 7000 lb, display weight approx 8000 lb

Hunter loop entry / exit speed circa 450 kt. Bearcat loop entry/exit speed circa 300 kt.

Kinetic energy varies with mass and the square of the speed. Speed factor comparing the two types is 1.5 squared, which is 2.25. Display weight factor is also about 2.25 greater for the Hunter. Multiply the two together (2.25 x 2.25)and the kinetic energy difference is 5.06x greater for the Hunter.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Work In Progress

[robvulcan]

Just enjoy the plastic equivalent for now. Until they ban that too. They should ban cars next because there are way more accidents with those. How about shoes that you might slip in. Why not lower the height of beds so you cant fall out of them. Shut the doors and don’t go out something might happen.. Sad times.

[Work In Progress]

They should ban cars next because there are way more accidents with those. How about shoes that you might slip in. Why not lower the height of beds so you cant fall out of them.

All of these are subject to safety regulation in various forms proportionate to the impact of the downside risks in relation to the volume of activity undertaken.

Cars? Safety regulation relating to car design, road design and driver behaviour has reduced the number of road deaths in the UK from 8000 a year in the early 60s to roughly 2000 a year now, despite the number of car miles driven multiplying by five in the same period. . So the safety per car mile driven is 20x better.

If you have a problem with safety regulation in general, hen okay, but you have to be prepared to pay the price in deaths and injuries and justify them to the population at large. If you don't have a problem with safety regulation in general, then I don't consider it realistic to exclude something as inherently hazardous as aviation.

*Edited to put the correct mileage factor in

Edited April 14, 2016 by Work In Progress

[alpine_modeller]

Love the piety on here.

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

[Work In Progress]

Easy to say if you have no responsibility for public safety.

[Albeback52]

As I understand it, the current safe distance between crowd and display at military shows is 250 metres anyway? Surely then increasing the distance between the display line and crowd line to this distance at civil shows if they did not already meet that limit is hardly a disaster is it. We are already used to a 250 metre separation at shows like RIAT so, where is the problem? Last year I attended shows at Sunderland and Ayr. Both, as I recall adhered to the 250 metre limit . Where does the figure of 450 metres quoted previously come from?. Now, admittedly I may have missed or misunderstood something so, I am willing to stand corrected.

450 metres is of course an entirely different kettle of fish. Totally silly really as it would probably make just about every show totally non viable. That is 1462 ft in old, silly measurements! . If you think a Spitfire is small at 250 metres, what is it going to be like at nearly twice the distance. The current distance is just about the limit at which I can take a decent photo. Any further away and I will probably give up air shows completely. I am all for sensible, practical safety measures. Nobody in their right minds would oppose same. However, I do wonder if these changes are motivated more by the desire to "be seen to be doing something" than anything else? Bottom line of course is that the only way to have a totally safe air show is to have all the aircraft grounded!! Of course, even then all it will take is some idiot tripping over a rabbit hole in the grass to bring about demands to ban all shows where the venues have grassy areas!!

Allan

ps - I admit to not having read every post here so, if the 450 metre separation has been clarified earlier, my apologies for bringing this up again.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Albeback52

[alpine_modeller]

Lets ban booze, fags and cars then...

[RichardPrice]

And if the aircraft went on to crash thanks to a fault, revealed later by the full in-depth investigation, despite showing "no abnormal indications" and "responding to the control inputs", then it would be colossally stupid,. not to mention negligent and unprofessional, to have cleared the aircraft to fly before having received the final report. The AAIB is VERY CLEAR on its website about what exactly the scope and remit of the interim reports are, and what they aren't. OK, it may be highly unlikely that it was a fault in the aircraft, but not 100% certain, so why on earth would you pre-empt the process that is designed to come to an accurate determination and recommendations...?

So where was the grounding of the Spitfire after two accidents within close promixity time-wise to each other?

Because safety regulation should be, and in this case is, done with regard to proportionality, which means considering both the likelihood and the effect of an incident. A typical Hunter crash is vastly more damaging than a typical Spitfire crash. I went through this on another thread last year - to reiterate...

Yeah, and I didn't buy it then. So a Spitfire might only kill 5 people rather than 20 people. Sucks to be those five people, but apparently thems the odds...

Still not a reason to ground every single (civil) Hunter in the UK. I do not buy that.