The Air Accident Investigation Branch’s (AAIB) report into the incident said that while the flying display director at Shoreham was well qualified, but he was not fully aware of the sequence of display manoeuvres the pilot of the jet was planning to carry out.
He was not, therefore, able to identify where they would take place, or which groups of people would be put at risk, the BBC reported.
Andy Hill, the pilot of the jet, survived the crash after the1959 Hawker Hunter jet he was flying plummeted on to the A27, in August last year.
The vintage jet fell during a rolling manoeuvre, destroying a number of vehicles and bursting into flames.
Richard Westcott, BBC transport correspondent said that this report doesn’t tell you why the Shoreham jet crashed, as that final report won’t be out for some weeks yet.
But it will have big implications for air shows up and down the country. It’ll mean tougher rules, more red tape, higher costs, better safety and it could also spell the end for dozens of the smaller shows, he added.
The report does say that that in a previous display, in 2014, the same aircraft had flown over residential areas several times, as well as performing a steep turn over the town centre of Lancing.
This was despite its flying permit specifically stating that it should not be flown over congested areas and the show’s organisers operating under similar constraints. However, the pilot was not told to stop his display.
The report also shows that The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) , which is responsible for allowing air shows to go ahead and monitoring their safety, only attended 18 of the 254 displays it authorised. In the United States, the regulator attends every show.
The report further issues a series of recommendations which are designed to make air shows safer in future. The 14 recommendations involve the way shows are organised and regulated, and how pilots are qualified to take part in them.
Responding to the latest report a CAA spokesperson said: “We will now review the AAIB’s bulletin in detail and consider all of its recommendations carefully. We will also factor the AAIB’s findings into our ongoing review of air display safety, which we expect to complete in the coming weeks.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t understand why Richard Westcott, BBC transport correspondent felt the need to add “it will have big implications for air shows up and down the country. It’ll mean tougher rules, more red tape, higher costs, better safety and it could also spell the end for dozens of the smaller shows”. This sounds like scare mongering to me. Surely if the risk assessment was not carried out properly it identifies people need to be trained how to carry out risk assessments properly and IMPLEMENT them. Not just treat risk assessment as a paperwork exercise as is usually the case in my experience and then wonder why things go wrong.
The report for the Shoreham air show crash has revealed the importance of proper risk assessment. It shows the importance of identifying those who may be affected what may be affected from the potential hazard identified. Thus, it is fitting that for future displays, the risk to people, places and environment should be thoroughly assessed.
Working around Aircraft for more than 20 odd years and on the Airfields that aircraft are flown from, provides one with a board base of visual experience on how an aircraft acts and preforms, even though a Pilot is in control… But many times weather/ the ambient conditions too, play their part. I too have been involved in aircraft crash recovery on many occasions and not all Pilots have survived. The point I’m exploring is that did the ‘Risk Assessment’ or not the ‘flight plan’ include matters of air conditions, what if it was a very hot day, would preforming a ‘loop’ need more ‘ceiling height’ to complete than normal to cooler conditions + that included a safety factor – which is built into any air manoeuvre; was there any low grade faults being carried within the aircrafts systems, its was suggested to being built in 1959. I’m not an expert in this area of aircraft performance but it seemed the aircraft engine was late in its power being applied – to pull the Hunter out of the bottom of the ‘Loop’, thereby ‘sinking’, did the Pilot black-out..! There are many facets to the ‘Aircraft Crash Investigation/s’; that maybe the public are not exposed/ informed about all the facts, they should be. In general, the public can take all the facts given, as long as the science is nether based on a ‘Janet & John’ format nor over technical, either can be very insulting to a well informed and minded audience. Factors like, and not least; that which affects the output of the engine/s as well as aerodynamic capabilities, increasing the required runway distance or even space to manoeuvre in; the establishment of an air trick/s etc. with its safe margin of error built in – to provide that over-run/ air condition variance’s/ cross-winds/ air depression… that can show its ugly head. I wish the families and friends of those that perished or affected by this incident, peace in their hearts and minds. And that the CAA/ Air show organisers are mindful of limits and margins are mapped to allow us to see these machines fly again without the devastation being repeated.
The plane was in the wrong place, at the wrong height and with external fuel tanks. Seeing just one of these acts of stupidity should have resulted in a stop call unless the FDD was negligent.
Did the BBC reporter really call for “More Red Tape” . I thought the report said the risk assessment did not meet the standard required in current legislation. For the past 5 years the Government has been calling such essential safety controls “un-necessary restrictions and red tape”, Here we see tragic proof of why that is nothing but a deliberate term to undermine safety.