A significant rise in CAA display charges

[Giorgio N]

I'm firmly in the field that any opinion on the Shoreham accident has to wait until the end of the investigation, however I've read a few things here that quite surprised the engineer that I'm supposed to be, so please let me add a few comments on a few things I've read.

Likelyness of accidents: accidents can happens and therefore happen but risk is assessed anytime a decision involving aircraft safety is taken. Saying that everything can lead to an accident and therefore there's no point in regulating is not only foolish but downright dangerous.

Sure, an accident can occur to a liner during take off or landing at a major airport and there's been some in the past, but the accident rate of liners is in a different cathegory compared to military high performance aircrafts. Taking the 737 for example that is the most widespread type in service today, this has an accident rate of 1 in every 2.5 million flight hours. Modern military aircrafts have accidents rate measured in units per every 100,000 flight hours, quite a difference. Of course this difference is due to a large number of things, liners don't operate in dangerous environments, most of their flight hours are spent in level flight at high altitudes etc. At the same time every system and equipment is much more stressed on a military type to achieve the maximum performance with the minimum weight. This takes its toll in terms of reliability and accidents. I've used the 737 as an example because it's a relatively short range type and the average flight would be quite short.

Now back a few years, the Hunter in RAF service, that is with a complete logistical service behind the fleet, averaged 15 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Like it or not, the likelyhood of an accident to a Hunter was 5-6 times higher than for an F-15 or a Typhoon. The same Hunter was a quantum leap compared to the Meteor, a type that had around 30-35 accidents every 100,00 flight hours. This kind of statistics include every type of accident, but apart from some well known cases, the large improvement in the safety record is due to the better reliability of more modern types. Engine problems for example are today a very rare event while in older aircrafts were quite frequent. So like it or not, a Hunter or a Sabre is more likely to suffer an accident than a modern fighter.

Aerobatics or simple passes: whatever the G rating of the aircraft, its age and its condition, aerobatics are more risky than passes. It's not only a matter of structural limits or fatigue of the main structural components, aerobatics involve higher stresses on the engine and its accessory equipment and on all flight controls. Aerobatic manouvers can also lead the engines into situations where accidents are more likely because of distortion in airflow or problems with fuel starvation. This is true for any aircraft so even if a type is cleared for aerobatics, the risk becomes higher. This is without considering that aerobatic manouvers are more likely to induce errors in the pilot. So again we may like it or not, but aerobatics are more dangerous.

If we put together both points, it's clear tha whether we like it or not having a Hunter perform aerobatics is inherently more dangerous than a Hawk doing the same, that is then more dangerous than a Hawk doing a pass... that is more dangerous than a 737 carrying passengers from Stansted to Ibiza... nothing surprising really, however we can't hide behind the "there's always an element of risk" mantra, some situations are clearly more potentially risky than others. It's down to the regulation authorities to decide if the risk is manageable and how minimize this.

Speaking of fast jets in civilian hands, there are statistics on accidents in the US that show that these have much higher accident rates compared to the same types during their service in the Military. For much higher I mean 5 to 7 times higher. And this without the hazards inherent with military flying (no civilian will ever have to land a Skyhawk on a carrier or do a high speed low level pass on a bombing range). Clearly the small number of data points in these statistics have an effect on the overall results, but maybe it would be worth rethinking a few things. Unless we accept to have around aircrafts with accident rates of 40-50 per every 100,000 flight hours

Edited February 7, 2016 by Giorgio N

[markjames68]

Put simply, fatigue index is linked to airframe/ spar life and calculated by the amount of simple/ aerobatic manouvers the aircraft does , the lighter its flown, the lomger it will last..... Put simply.....

I , being in the industry, am not REALLY interested in speculation, the same as many here, however many are jumping to the conclusion it was an airframe problem......the CAA have IIRC said in their first interim report that all seemed to be functioning correctly as viewed by the onboard cameras

[Circloy]

Where on the CAA site does it say the rise in fees is as a result of the Shoreham disaster?

It simply doesn't - The rise in fees is to recover the shortfall between income and costs.

The choice appears to be between organiser's, and subsequently the attendee's, paying fees that cover the actual costs or the CAA closing down the office that deals with shows and thus no shows at all.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Quote.

'The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work. It is classed as a public corporation, established by statute, in the public sector.'

I suspect this is opportunistic. Shoreham has given them an excuse to re-visit their charge structure. As I said before, 'Golden Eggs.' If we lose airshows, we will lose aircraft abroad, probably to USA, never to be seen again. The CAA will then lose revenue from a lack of airshows and airframes to regulate. We all know Govt. departments are short sighted, and we are in danger of going back to the '60s, but without the military input, we will be scuppered. Air displays are second only to football in terms of bums on seats. I think we must all put in written objections to their proposals. I notice their 'official' form has been designed to put people off. An ordinary letter should be sufficient; Joe Public should not be expected to fill out 'Official' documents in order to protest.

[Truro Model Builder]

Entirely opportunistic. In the middle of an investigation into an incident that was tragic, highly publicised and which has shaken the industry to the core, and which will have long term ramifications that will severely affect the profitability of operators in that industry, the regulating body turns around and decides to whack all of its charges pertaining to that industry up by 100% as well as introduce new ones.

Any organisation with an ounce of integrity would wait until the investigation was complete and new, permanent regulations were finalised before pulling a stunt like this.

[mhaselden]

You're assuming the left hand within CAA knows what the right hand is doing. It's entirely plausible that the 2 events are unrelated and the timing is merely coincidental.

[bentwaters81tfw]

[Truro Model Builder]

You're assuming the left hand within CAA knows what the right hand is doing. It's entirely plausible that the 2 events are unrelated and the timing is merely coincidental.

Are you playing devil's advocate, 'cos I can't honestly believe anyone would swallow that. The CAA document mentions Shoreham by name.

[Panzer Vor!!!]

This is getting boring and just keeps rehashing the same old info

[kitbasher2009]

The CAA's Scheme of Charges is reviewed annually. See http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=list&type=sercat&id=10&filter=3&reorder=refOrder.

[bentwaters81tfw]

So instead of a gradual annual increase, we are suddenly hit with doubling of fees plus a new one? Coincidence? We don't have a flying pig emoticon,but if we did I expect the CAA would want to certify it and charge for the privilege.

[bzn20]

I know the Hunter and fast jets (like that) have G meters but does the Pitts and the like have them? BTW Do these air display people get NDT in to check the airframe , are there even safety bulletins, AILs,STIs? I think there has been a lot of things not being done as they should. A knee jerk was what we were always going to get,esp after the casualties on a busy road.

[mhaselden]

Fair enough, chaps. I was being accidentally stupid.

While I agree that a 100% increase in fees, and adding new charges on top, is rather eye-watering, we should consider the financial impact on airshows. For Duxford, if the fee was passed on 100% to the public, it would still result in less than a quid per head on the attendance fee. I'm not sure the increased costs alone will spell the death knell of many established, well-run airshows.

Personally, I'd rather see warbirds performing sedate fly-bys than have them doing fancy aerobatics. I was at Duxford when the RNHF Firefly crashed - a tragic, and pointless, waste of life. Shoreham was the same but far worse. I want to see and hear the aircraft flying - I don't need to see low-level aerobatics performed in museum-pieces. The Duxford Balbo in 2000 was far more moving, to me, than any loop, roll or other aerobatic maneouvre performed by any warbird in any show I've seen over the years.

Edited February 8, 2016 by mhaselden

[bentwaters81tfw]

As a point, the Firefly crashed due to pilot error, he applied throttle whilst rolling out of a manouevre, and the torque rolled him back into a knife edge. Insufficient height speed and lift to recover. Many historics are limited by the pilot/operator to minimise fatigue, you don't see BBMF chucking stuff around the sky. They avoid flying in rain because of degradation of the props. NDT is employed, VTTS did a lot of it, BBMF do and even the Shack guys have to do some to ensure there is no corrosion. I know ARCO do it as well in areas where a visible inspection is difficult.

Joe Public will end up footing the bill, or voting with his feet, and that includes me. RIAT is a no go for me, and it looks like DX is too from now on. Unless the Russians turn up, it really leaves little I haven't seen before, so I can manage without.

[The original Kit Builder]

Yet another example of the 'dictatorship' that now runs the UK…namely the HSE….I'm a great advocate of H&S in the workplace and life in general but its taken over our lives and common sense has been thrown out of the window. I fully appreciate that some people need to be protected from themselves but that has always been the case. Love the comment made by Colin W above….so very true. Let's be clear, NONE of this takes anything away from, or devalues, the tragedy that was Shoreham last year but accidents happen every day of the year; are we all to be wrapped up in cotton wool and never allowed to leave our houses again ?.

With respect, it is nonsense to bring the HSE into it, as they have nothing whatever to do with aviation or road safety, which are both completely outside their remit.

It is not the HSE's purpose to ban anything, anyway. Its sole reason for existing is to help things happen safely, whilsr recognising that risk can't be completely eliminated.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, or hear from the likes of David Cameron and his ilk.

[Truro Model Builder]

Sywell and Barton airshows both cancelled.

I think this post from the Key Publishing forum says it eloquently:

This from Mark Jefferies - Display Pilot ( Organiser of annual Children In need Dispaly, Little Gransden)

Authority and responsibility

Is the over reaction based upon advice from Lawyers that said you are (CAA) liable?

CAA cashed the cheque, read the application, looked at the organisers submitted map and issued their own map and air show permission.

CAA looked at the list of submitted acts/ aircraft on the application and issued the permission.

CAA cashed the cheque and certified the aircraft.

CAA cashed the cheque and issued the DA

CAA cashed the cheque and issued a "Aircraft Type Rating Exemption" for permission to fly an aircraft "without being the holder of an appropriate type rating". (This is to do with Permit to Fly jet aircraft)

CAA approved (dont know if there is a fee involved) the DAE to act on their behalf

CAA cashed the cheque and granted the AME a licence to medicaly evaluate pilots

So, to reduce liability you pass the buck. i.e. make everyone else liable except yourself

To reduce the risk you reduce the number of shows

To reduce the number of qualified pilots you make it an unattractive profession

With reducing the number of shows increases the cost burden on those remaining (CAA will only reluctantly and slowly reduce staffing as managers need people to manage-pay structure etc)

With costs increasing it will be like a J curve on those remaining

All this has happened once before in history. People cut down the trees to move the giant heads (Easter Island) with no trees they could not support themselves and as a race they slowly but surely died out. Returning the island to a barren landscape

Is this the intended future our CAA would like?

There is a very significant industry with many jobs created in the UK restoring very historic aircraft for future genarations, lest we forget why these aircraft were built in the first place. The end user (temporary owner) recovers a small amount of his ownership costs flying air shows. Has the CAA done a projected jobs lost analysis of there proposed actions?

Authority without responsibility.

There are some sencible suggestions in the document but it does not justify 100% + cost in fees and an aditional post show tax.

Be it in this instance (Shoreham) or a multitude of other unfortunate disasters we (as a body and country) should all be on the same side pulling together for the better of everybody.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Take up knitting folks, the show's over.

I suggest we all make our thoughts known - politely - to the CAA, before the deadline.

[JeffreyK]

Have done already - admittedly a lot more briefly than the above, but in its gist of similar content:

"It would be helpful to explain and thus justify exactly how and where this estimated £250k operating cost increase is actually coming from. Without a detailed, itemised explanation I cannot help but think that the CAA is shamelessly cashing in on a very tragic event and trying to ultimately rid itself of a perceived nuisance (air shows) by way of their economic starvation."

Perhaps I should write again, or to my MP...

J

[spfparker]

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/sywell-aerodrome-cancels-popular-airshow-due-to-increase-in-aviation-fees-1-7207979

[F4u]

So Sywell was due to the charges and now Barton , I have made my views clear but politely to the CAA but we need more people to do the same.

Who will be the next show to cancel ?

Guy

[bzn20]

The next Farnborough is going to be interesting . Costs enough already.

[Truro Model Builder]

With respect, it is nonsense to bring the HSE into it, as they have nothing whatever to do with aviation or road safety, which are both completely outside their remit.

It is not the HSE's purpose to ban anything, anyway. Its sole reason for existing is to help things happen safely, whilsr recognising that risk can't be completely eliminated.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, or hear from the likes of David Cameron and his ilk.

Somebody should have told that to the RAF Policewoman at Coningsby today.

According to a post on PPRuNe the Red Arrows carried out a practice display at the airfield as part of their pre-season work-up. The time and date have been publicised in advance, and understandably a number of rubber neckers arrived ahead of the appointed time. There is an earth mound in an adjoining field (NOT MoD land) at the south west corner which offers views over the perimeter fence, and which I believe is quite popular with enthusiasts. About fifteen minutes before the Reds were due along comes Ms. Plod and tells everybody to get off the mound due to health and safety reasons.

I'm not an expert, but as the mound is on private land I think she had no legal authority there, and it is another example of the hysterics that are now being shown over the Reds in particular since Shoreham. Remember the recent incident with spectators at Scampton? And the team has announced that they have pulled out of a display at the Suffolk County Show due to the proximity of built up areas and nearby road junctions. Looking at the site on Google Earth I am immediately struck by how much green there is around the showground as opposed to somewhere like, oh, let's say Farnborough, but if they pull out of that event I shall walk through Truro wearing nothing but a smile*.

*at 2am in the morning.

Edited February 26, 2016 by T7 Models

[F4u]

Makes you wonder dosen't it !

Guy

[bzn20]

RAF Police (Imagine the same for Army and Navy) can detain anyone within 2 miles (It might even be up to 5 miles) of the Camp boundries. This would be vehicle stops if they left the areas Snow drops were responsible for.Thats what we were told on our GSK (General Service Knowledge ) courses. The local constabulary has to be informed. On any day if we saw something suspiscious the other side of the wire, we'd call in the Snow drops to take a look at some suspicious people and they did,IDs out and details taken. I've called them out at least 5 times that I can remember. Not sure about the mound and snow drop episode you mentioned but they do have the authority to be there.

Diplomatic plates spotted had to be reported too,even if I was in Oxford 20 miles from Brize but thats another thing altogether.

Edited February 26, 2016 by bzn20

[Truro Model Builder]

Diplomatic plates spotted had to be reported too,even if I was in Oxford 20 miles from Brize but thats another thing altogether.

Yes, I remember that from my days in the long departed Royal Observer Corps.

Thank you for some context, but I still think it's all getting a bit silly.