Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shoreham Crash Trial Begins.

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (4 members and 5 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ZRX61
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2005
    • 4596

    Originally posted by Beermat View Post

    Laugh? I think that would be a little inappropriate, don't you think? Pilots become incapacitated by the forces acting upon them. Maybe that 'shouldn't' have happened, but maybe it did. Nothing funny there for me either way, people died. Maybe blue angels have a different sense of humour?
    Can you imagine a Blue Angels post display debrief where the pilots stated they couldn't remember what they just did owing to g forces?
    If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: It's all balls. RJM.

    Comment

    • skyskooter
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Oct 2012
      • 391

      Going back to post 94 and John Greens reference to the 1952 DH110 tragedy at Farnborough where so many spectators as well as the two crew lost their lives I believe it was Bill Gunston who said there was not a single compensation claim as a result of the accident. The change in culture has come from America. English law imported the notion of product liability. Nowadays de Havilland would have been sued for flying a prototype aircraft with a structurally defective wing at a public air show resulting in loss of life. The CPS could probably make a case for manslaughter by gross negligence too.

      It is worth remembering as well that in the 1950s entry tickets were subject to terms and conditions on the back or available elsewhere Inevitably one of the conditions was that the spectator entered the airfield at his own risk and without liability on the part of the organisers. That would never wash today.

      Comment

      • Meddle
        Rank Bajin.
        • Sep 2014
        • 1626

        Originally posted by skyskooter View Post
        Going back to post 94 and John Greens reference to the 1952 DH110 tragedy at Farnborough where so many spectators as well as the two crew lost their lives I believe it was Bill Gunston who said there was not a single compensation claim as a result of the accident. The change in culture has come from America. English law imported the notion of product liability. Nowadays de Havilland would have been sued for flying a prototype aircraft with a structurally defective wing at a public air show resulting in loss of life.
        I wonder if the loss of DH110 was anything like the loss of Vulcan VX770, in that test pilots tried their damnedest to bend the aircraft and throw it around as much as possible. In which case, De Havilland might have been at fault, but ultimately it might have boiled down to the culture within test flying back then?



        Originally posted by John Green
        Is it possible to detect some degree of sanctimonious moralising, some elements of a witch hunt searching for a scapegoat; a villain, all contained within allegations of criminality ?

        On these and other forums I'm seeing more people trying to give Andy Hill a free pass for what is ultimately a bit of dodgy flying, because he's one of our own, or because people don't want to see their one hobby ruined by additional legislation. Look no further than the pernicious claims made early on on either this forum or the equally backwater UK Airshows forum, that those who died at Shoreham basically deserved it for freeloading the airshow. And that these people had recklessly ruined the airshow scene for everybody else (including those who truck down to RIAT and then freeload the whole thing from fields under common flight paths).

        The wagon-circling on here has been amazing. The sanctimonious moralising has been predominantly from those who think this thread should either be shut down or heavily policed, lest we somehow bias a jury or feed journalists the wrong message. All because poor Andy is our mate and he's suffered enough, while other threads discussing the losses of historic aircraft get a free pass.

        Comment

        • lothar
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2007
          • 55

          CD re your #99:

          Do not jet engines, Hawker Hunter engines, have RPM gauges? Yes they do and nowadays they show % i.e 100% is full power/max RPM and 50% is half speed but do note that 50% RPM is unlikely to be anywhere near half power as power increases almost exponentially with RPM. RPM guages in Hunter a/c showed actual RPM not percentage whereas in the Lightning (also Avon powered) we had moved on to percent. Power settings for various aspects of flight are set by RPM percent not JPT/TGT/EGT/TBT. and thus is the usual measure of thrust - temperature is more used as a monitor of engine health. .

          In the event of a flame-out you will have both decaying RPM and temperature but, unless the engine seizes (bad news), you will still have windmilling RPM with only residual temperature. With a surge the opposite is the case - a rapidly rising temperature accompanied by lowering RPM.

          My input is based on my time on Hunter/Lightning/Tornado/Hawk. I have no commercial experience.so cannot vouch that this input is accurate for todays commercial a/c but the laws of physics still apply!

          Lothar

          Comment

          • lothar
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Aug 2007
            • 55

            Meddle re your #103.

            I think that you are being both harsh and misinformed if you think that Hill is being given a free pass by his colleagues. I can assure you that, in the world of fast jet flying, one's fiercest critics are those that are in the position and have the knowledge to make such criticism. Moreover we are far from forgiving! The difference is that we tend to be more objective and resist coming to conclusions without all the facts. I have many years experience on the Hunter and have found some of the evidence in this case somewhat surprising. It would indeed appear Hill did not achieve his gate height but the intrinsic question is WHY and also why he continued.

            As to the off-base specators I totally agree with you - they were innocent specators and the resyults were indeed tragic.

            Comment

            • Bruce
              Independent analyst
              • Jan 2000
              • 10163

              Just to pick up on something from earlier in the thread.

              Witnesses, no matter who they are called by do not ACT on behalf of the prosecution or the defence. In the case of Mr Whaley, he appears as an expert witness. It is perfectly credible that another Hunter pilot could appear for the defense and tell a different story. In part it is how the counsel frames the questions that will lead to the answers they get. It is also quite possible that the same witness could be called by the other side to provide clarity of a point they made originally.

              Comment

              • Beermat
                1 Registered Rank Loser
                • Oct 2009
                • 3546

                Originally posted by ZRX61 View Post

                Can you imagine a Blue Angels post display debrief where the pilots stated they couldn't remember what they just did owing to g forces?
                https://www.military.com/defensetech...blamed-on-gloc

                Without comment.
                www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
                It's all good. Probably.

                Comment

                • John Green
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Mar 2011
                  • 6643

                  A few weeks ago, a well known public figure, an elderly motorist driving in East Anglia and emerging from a road junction collided with another vehicle. Minor injuries were sustained by the participants and vehicles were damaged. The public, reading about this incident, understood that it happened without 'intent', eg. it was an 'accident'. It was a chance event. It wasn't intended. A mistake had been made. albeit of the non lethal variety. There may be other reasons at play but, I'm certain that criminal proceedings will not be brought because it is understood that what happened was an accident.

                  Without waxing too philosophical, we are all of us imperfect humans. We make mistakes - frequently. The theme of this discussion.involved a misjudgement, an accident, a mishap, all of it evolving entirely without intent or, any suggestion of deliberation and therefore undeserving of a criminal prosecution.

                  The participants in the 1952 Farnborough Air Display did not in any way conspire to bring about this tragedy. Science had not yet solved all of the aerodynamic conundrums. What happened, happened without intent. It was an accident and because there were fatalities underwent a Coroner's inquest not, a criminal investigation.

                  Apart from being separated by some 70 years in time, what is different about these two aerial calamities as to merit such different treatment before the law ? . From a moral point of view - nothing. They are the same. Perhaps the law relevant to these matters has been changed permitting the now necessary identification of a valuable scapegoat.

                  Comment

                  • Creaking Door
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Sep 2006
                    • 9754

                    Blue Angels: Twenty-six (pilot?) fatalities in their sixty year history.....that's quite a fatality-rate.

                    interesting also that they fly without G-suits during displays,
                    WA$.

                    Comment

                    • Creaking Door
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Sep 2006
                      • 9754

                      Apart from the tragic events at the 1952 Farnborough Air Display the crash at Shoreham is virtually (actually?) unprecedented in the United Kingdom and the fact that there is a trial for negligence (on the part of the pilot) at all relies on one almost miraculous circumstance: that there is a pilot who survived the crash and is able to be prosecuted. And I'm not suggesting for a second that John Derry was negligent (only that a trial may have taken place if he had survived).

                      Times have changed, and mostly for the better, the world is a much safer place (in most respects) than it was in 1952, and attitudes have changed also, but paradoxically, in many cases, not for the better...

                      ...for example the post earlier about the drunken idiot being 'awarded' 50,000 for his stupidity!

                      Personally, I blame much of this 'compensation culture' on the courts themselves; the fact that the 50,000 paid was an out-of-court settlement shows the cost of going to court but also the very real potential for losing such a case...

                      ...In my ideal courtroom such a case would only have resulted in a charge for being 'drunken and disorderly'!

                      I think it is also true that several high-profile cases have led to an almost paralysing fear of suggesting that the responsibility for a tragedy may be more widely shared than the outcry for 'justice' would have us believe, and this has led to the replacement the grey-scale of actual 'responsibility' with a binary, black or white, guilty responsibility or total innocence for anybody connected with the case, if they face prosecution or not (or, in fact, whether they face prosecution or not).

                      Clearly nobody could attach any responsibility whatsoever to those travelling along the A27 that day but the fact remains that a calculated risk was taken by various parties that it was an 'acceptable risk' to have a busy public road in an area where, had it been part of the airfield, the organisers would not have allowed, or rather, the organisers would have been prevented from allowing, ticket-holders at the airshow to stand.
                      Last edited by Creaking Door; 11th February 2019, 13:26.
                      WA$.

                      Comment

                      • D1566
                        Needs retiring.
                        • Apr 2006
                        • 2092

                        Originally posted by John Green
                        A few weeks ago, a well known public figure, an elderly motorist driving in East Anglia and emerging from a road junction collided with another vehicle. Minor injuries were sustained by the participants and vehicles were damaged. The public, reading about this incident, understood that it happened without 'intent', eg. it was an 'accident'. It was a chance event. It wasn't intended. A mistake had been made. albeit of the non lethal variety. There may be other reasons at play but, I'm certain that criminal proceedings will not be brought because it is understood that what happened was an accident.
                        It may well have been an 'accident' (without intent) but whether it was an avoidable accident is a different discussion, one which I would imagine the legal profession would be more than happy to argue.
                        I gather from todays news that criminal proceedings will not be brought in the case of the East Anglia accident, largely because the elderly motorist has agreed to hand in his licence.
                        Martin

                        Comment

                        • Nige
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 224

                          Originally posted by Creaking Door View Post
                          Apart from the tragic events at the 1952 Farnborough Air Display the crash at Shoreham is virtually (actually?) unprecedented in the United Kingdom and the fact that there is a trial for negligence (on the part of the pilot) at all relies on one almost miraculous circumstance: that there is a pilot who survived the crash and is able to be prosecuted. And I'm not suggesting for a second that John Derry was negligent (only that a trial may have taken place if he had survived).

                          Times have changed, and mostly for the better, the world is a much safer place (in most respects) than it was in 1952, and attitudes have changed also, but paradoxically, in many cases, not for the better...

                          ...for example the post earlier about the drunken idiot being 'awarded' 50,000 for his stupidity!

                          Personally, I blame much of this 'compensation culture' on the courts themselves; the fact that the 50,000 paid was an out-of-court settlement shows the cost of going to court but also the very real potential for losing such a case...

                          ...In my courtroom such a case would only have resulted in a charge for being 'drunken and disorderly'!
                          At the risk of thread drift...
                          The accident occurred on a hill leading to a fairly remote village where the friend I had been visiting lived.
                          The victim was a farm labourer, well known for spending his wages in the pub on Friday night, then staggering home down the said road.

                          He spent months in hospital, but made a reasonable recovery.
                          (I had called the hospital the morning after the accident.
                          The nurse opined that his alcohol level had anethsatised him sufficiently to save his life)

                          Guess where much of the 50K ended up being spent...!

                          Comment

                          • Creaking Door
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Sep 2006
                            • 9754

                            I too live in a 'fairly remote' village without footpaths or street-lighting on the country roads and in the last three years have, twice, come within an ace of killing somebody walking down the road at night:

                            One young man owes his life to the fact that the soles of his black training-shoes were white; while passing a car coming the other way (and looking at the near-side verge in the 'black-hole' beyond the glare of its headlights) those moving white soles were all that I saw! Other than that he was dressed head-to-toe in black: black coat, black jeans, black trainers plus black hair and a black dog! Walking (obliviously) on the road with his back to the traffic. If he'd been standing still I'd certainly have hit him.

                            It was a difficult and dangerous place to stop and warn him (I wish I had done so) but I did think he looked like (black dog!) the son of a friend of mine so I rang her and warned her but it wasn't her son. I didn't see him again but curiously my friend almost ran him down herself a few nights later (at a slightly safer spot) and she was able to stop and warn him.

                            The other guy I nearly hit was walking down a road (60MPH speed limit) with overhanging trees while dressed in army-surplus camouflage kit and sporting a full black beard! This time I did turn round to advise him that nobody could see him and it might be a good idea to walk on the verge when he saw a car coming; all I got for my trouble was some abuse and his opinion that it was none of my ******* business where he walked...

                            ...I suppose if I'd hit and seriously injured him he'd have accepted that it was still 'none of my business'?

                            Apologies for the thread-drift!
                            Last edited by Creaking Door; 11th February 2019, 14:10.
                            WA$.

                            Comment

                            • John Green
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Mar 2011
                              • 6643

                              Re 111

                              Avoidable or unavoidable would require some interpretation. Either way, if it is without demonstrable intent, it is just an accident.

                              Comment

                              • D1566
                                Needs retiring.
                                • Apr 2006
                                • 2092

                                Originally posted by John Green View Post
                                Re 111

                                Avoidable or unavoidable would require some interpretation. Either way, if it is without demonstrable intent, it is just an accident.
                                Disagree; if it is deemed to be avoidable then a question of negligence arises.

                                Martin

                                Comment

                                • Firebird
                                  Avons with attitude
                                  • Mar 2003
                                  • 2140

                                  Originally posted by lothar View Post
                                  As to the off-base specators I totally agree with you - they were innocent specators and the resyults were indeed tragic.
                                  Actually, it should be remembered, that a number of those killed were not freeloaders or spectators of the show, they were merely driving along the A27 past the venue.
                                  I was with it all the way until letting the brakes off..........

                                  Comment

                                  • John Green
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Mar 2011
                                    • 6643

                                    D1566

                                    I would not like to be sitting on any jury convened to consider the merits of your reply - among other matters - when applied to the 1952 Farnboro' disaster. How do you work out 'avoidable' ? Who could have known according to the aerodynamic knowledge of that time that there were inflight stress limits for the DH110 airframe ? I mention Farnboro' because it offers a ready example of the difficulties in apportioning blame when employing subjective descriptions such as 'avoidable/unavoidable.

                                    Comment

                                    • D1566
                                      Needs retiring.
                                      • Apr 2006
                                      • 2092

                                      Originally posted by John Green View Post
                                      D1566

                                      I would not like to be sitting on any jury convened to consider the merits of your reply - among other matters - when applied to the 1952 Farnboro' disaster. How do you work out 'avoidable' ? Who could have known according to the aerodynamic knowledge of that time that there were inflight stress limits for the DH110 airframe ? I mention Farnboro' because it offers a ready example of the difficulties in apportioning blame when employing subjective descriptions such as 'avoidable/unavoidable.
                                      One of the principles of accident prevention is to reduce risks to where they are 'as low as is reasonably practical'.
                                      Not sure that could be claimed in either instance (Shoreham or Farnborough).
                                      Martin

                                      Comment

                                      • Beermat
                                        1 Registered Rank Loser
                                        • Oct 2009
                                        • 3546

                                        I agree.. everything is avoidable with sufficient fore-knowledge. It's an extraordinarily complex area. Negligence might be proveable where it can be demonstrated that someone knew what was likely to happen and let causal things occur anyway. If a DH stressman knew about leading edge flutter of a box in torsion, considered this as a degtee of freedom on the 110 and calculated that it fell within the envelope of the display and didn't warn of it then there's possibly an argument of neglegence there. It would be - will be - much harder to demonstrate that a sane and fully conscious pilot who would quite likely die through an action would still 'negligently' perform that action.Mistakenly possibly, but negligently - not easy to demonstrate.
                                        Last edited by Beermat; 11th February 2019, 22:22.
                                        www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
                                        It's all good. Probably.

                                        Comment

                                        • John Green
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Mar 2011
                                          • 6643

                                          D1566

                                          Extending that argument to its logical conclusion is to avoid all activity associated with or, leading to any degree of risk whatsoever. Perhaps the answer is risk assessed as uninsurable. We can all - participant and spectator alike, rest comfortably in our armchairs, safe and bored witless, indulging in circular introspection thoughts of; 'what if....'

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X