Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shoreham Crash Trial Begins.

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (2 members and 5 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Creaking Door
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Sep 2006
    • 9754

    ...without demonstrable intent, it is just an accident.
    Sorry, but how can that be true.....who intends to have, or cause, an accident?

    The drink-driver speeding through the red lights...

    ...he didn't intend to hit your son's / daughter's car.....didn't intend to kill them.....but, no intent, so.....just an 'accident', right?

    WA$.

    Comment

    • Vega ECM
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Oct 2005
      • 467

      Originally posted by Beermat View Post
      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.
      The DH stress men knew about the structural problem in that part of the airframe because WG240 was reinforced compared to WG236 ie the first prototype. Derry has been flying 240 all week and only switched to 236 that day when 240 went U/S. It was said Derry was informed of the manoeuvring limit on 236 but for an unknown reason, ignored it. Another story was was that the DH drawing office, who discovered the problem after 236s first flight, failed to clearly communicated the flight restriction to Derry. None of this was made public at the inquest because the DH110 structure was classified top secret. This national security aspect meant that a full account could never have been told in court and hence there could not have been a fair trial so its not an apples to apples comparison.
      Last edited by Vega ECM; 11th February 2019, 22:19.

      Comment

      • Bradburger
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2000
        • 1431

        Latest report form today's proceedings: -

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47201796

        Some interesting comments from Dave Southwood.

        Cheers

        Paul

        The most usless commodity in aerobatics is the amount of sky above you!

        Comment

        • ZRX61
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2005
          • 4596

          Originally posted by Beermat View Post
          I watched that guy fly a display a couple of years back. There's a sequence where the #5 has to go like a bat out of hell to join up with the others. He broke the #5 aircraft during the practice display two days before the show. Then he did it again after they fixed it for the Friday practice & again on the Saturday during the display & had to fly the spare for the show on the Sunday after it crapped out just before take-off at the end of the runway. The crew chief said "he breaks it every time he flies it". The issue was something to do with slats on the leading edge. Even though he broke it a few times over the week, it was a different part of the same system that broke each time.
          It's the exact same join up sequence that the previous pilot was killed at Beaufort some years earlier. Struck me as bloody odd that they stick with the same sequence that keeps breaking them & killing them.
          Last edited by ZRX61; 12th February 2019, 06:56.
          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

          • D1566
            Needs retiring.
            • Apr 2006
            • 2095

            Originally posted by John Green View Post
            D1566

            Extending that argument to its logical conclusion is to avoid all activity associated with or, leading to any degree of risk whatsoever.
            Sorry but it isn't; that's the whole point of the 'reasonably practical' part of the phrase.

            Martin

            Comment

            • Beermat
              1 Registered Rank Loser
              • Oct 2009
              • 3546

              Vega ECM thank you, I didn't know that about the Derry incident. Not apples for apples for sure.. when I said 'if a stress man knew' I thought I was talking hypothetically. The state of aeroelastic knowledge at the time was limited by calculating power.. you could only work out what any one part - a degree of freedom - would do at a given speed by knowing what all the parts around it were doing also. This quickly became a piece of mathematics that took rooms full of people months and was thus limited to known common flutter regions. . It was turned over to analogue computers in some cases in the early fifties in the context of post-crash investigation but I have found no evidence of electronic calculations applied in the drawing office pre-flutter. I believe the P.1 was the first. Also I believe this was high frequency flutter brought on by shockwaves moving about the leading edge? In which case there was near-zero understanding of this mechanism at the time and so a stressman's pre-event calculation of flutter here is vanishingly unlikely.

              I am.guessing either the first prototype actually had a vibration there, in which case it was criminal to only reinforce one aircraft, or it was someone's hunch applied after looking at the area and thinking 'doesn't look strong enough'.What is the best source for more information on this? With apologies for the thread creep, and terrible typing on this tiny phone.
              Last edited by Beermat; 13th February 2019, 14:24.
              www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
              It's all good. Probably.

              Comment

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

                Re 125

                I disagree. It is the only conclusion possible. No risk; no accident - full stop. On that point and very much connected, I don't understand why it is thought necessary to air display an extremely valuable historic aircraft - from a finite source - in a manner that is extravagant and places stress on an airframe that, altho' in prime condition, needs to be kept that way for as long as may be possible.

                Surely simple 'wingovers', gentle rate 2 turns, easy manoeuvers that do not cause the aircraft to squeak silently in protest but, permits good photo opportunities for the spectators, would be sufficient so as to please all ?

                Not only would this be good for the aircraft it would also reduce the likelihood of increased risk to aircrew and spectator. If this simple caveat had been imposed at both Farnboro' and Shoreham there might, just might have been a different outcome, albeit for different reasons.


                Vega ECM

                Thank you for that excellent explanation. It certainly fills a few spaces.
                Last edited by John Green; 12th February 2019, 11:55.

                Comment

                • D1566
                  Needs retiring.
                  • Apr 2006
                  • 2095

                  Originally posted by John Green View Post
                  Re 125

                  I disagree. It is the only conclusion possible. No risk; no accident - full stop.
                  Having seen the effect that the principle of reducing risk to as low as is reasonably practical, in what was a very hazardous and accident prone industry, to the point where serious accidents are a rarity, I know that it works and does not stop operations. Perhaps you could advise your experience of it?

                  Originally posted by John Green View Post
                  On that point and very much connected, I don't understand why it is thought necessary to air display an extremely valuable historic aircraft - from a finite source - in a manner that is extravagant and places stress on an airframe that, altho' in prime condition, needs to be kept that way for as long as may be possible.

                  Surely simple 'wingovers', gentle rate 2 turns, easy manoeuvers that do not cause the aircraft to squeak silently in protest but, permits good photo opportunities for the spectators, would be sufficient so as to please all ?

                  Not only would this be good for the aircraft it would also reduce the likelihood of increased risk to aircrew and spectator. If this simple caveat had been imposed at both Farnboro' and Shoreham there might, just might have been a different outcome, albeit for different reasons.
                  Oddly enough you then appear to go on to advocate reducing risk ...
                  Martin

                  Comment

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

                    D1566

                    I'm in favour of any measures that might help to extend the flying life of rare and beautiful historic aircraft - aren't you ?

                    What 'experiences' do you have in mind ?
                    Last edited by John Green; 12th February 2019, 19:16.

                    Comment

                    • ozplane
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Mar 2004
                      • 1609

                      D1566, I have a similar experience to yourself. You wouldn't have worked for Du Pont by any chance? The first day I joined I was told "all accidents are preventable" and that philosophy permeated the company whether it be sales ,research or production The way it was done was to get everybody on board and in my warehousing group we had done over 2 million man hours without a Lost Workday Case. The safety awards were worth having but the real bonus was nobody got hurt..

                      Comment

                      • D1566
                        Needs retiring.
                        • Apr 2006
                        • 2095

                        Originally posted by ozplane View Post
                        D1566, I have a similar experience to yourself. You wouldn't have worked for Du Pont by any chance? The first day I joined I was told "all accidents are preventable" and that philosophy permeated the company whether it be sales ,research or production The way it was done was to get everybody on board and in my warehousing group we had done over 2 million man hours without a Lost Workday Case. The safety awards were worth having but the real bonus was nobody got hurt..
                        No, I work in the Oil Industry, but many of our safety processes were Du Pont in their origin.
                        Martin

                        Comment

                        • David_Kavangh
                          Senior Member
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 1011

                          Andy Hill is giving evidence today.

                          Comment

                          • KurtB
                            Rank 4 Registered User
                            • Feb 2018
                            • 147

                            Thanks David. No doubt thatll be in the news later.

                            Comment

                            • D1566
                              Needs retiring.
                              • Apr 2006
                              • 2095

                              https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47226758
                              Martin

                              Comment

                              • Dev One
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Feb 2010
                                • 195

                                On a simple matter regarding G trousers:- I was lucky to be able to experience two sorties in a T7 back on the early 80's. The first sortie surprised me when pulling some 'g' as I was given a strong belt (not a squeeze) around the belly as the valve did its work. When back on the ground I noted that the aircrew clothing crew had not laced me up very tight initially, so on the second sortie I made sure they were tight initially, & also on a later trip in a Hawk, where the pilot was known for his gentle flying, not wearing g trousers for that type of sortie, but he did some nice aeros.
                                Now I would have thought that would not happen to an experienced ex RAF pilot, so I would assume that this info is irrelevant to the case in question. Just a particular experience of mine!

                                Mods - feel free to adjudicate as required.

                                Comment

                                • steve611
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2013
                                  • 171

                                  Purely as an aside, I do have to wonder if at some point the defense might offer that if the pilot knowingly *******ked up he knew that it would kill him as well. Virtually no-one knowingly enters into a set of actions that has a bloody high likelihood that you will die as a consequence. It is not in question that he survived against all the odds. Unless he was suicidal then "gross negligence which would put his life at risk"? Really?

                                  Comment

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

                                    That's an interesting point, and begs the question: what is the definition of 'negligent' under the law?

                                    Can you be negligent and know you've been negligent? Certainly. Can you be negligent and not know you've been negligent? Maybe? But then the 'negligence' reasserts itself over your realisation, or not, that you've been negligent and your subsequent actions to correct that negligence, or not.
                                    WA$.

                                    Comment

                                    • Dev One
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Feb 2010
                                      • 195

                                      Originally posted by Creaking Door View Post
                                      That's an interesting point, and begs the question: what is the definition of 'negligent' under the law?

                                      Can you be negligent and know you've been negligent? Certainly. Can you be negligent and not know you've been negligent? Maybe? But then the 'negligence' reasserts itself over your realisation, or not, that you've been negligent and your subsequent actions to correct that negligence, or not.
                                      Sounds like suicide to me, unfortunately with collateral damage if not done correctly....

                                      Comment

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

                                        I wasn't talking about this case in particular; just wondering what the legal definitions would be?
                                        WA$.

                                        Comment

                                        • Beermat
                                          1 Registered Rank Loser
                                          • Oct 2009
                                          • 3546

                                          My #117 - "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". I really must start writing stuff that people don't stop reading half way through.

                                          However, since writing that I found this - Thompson Reuters Practical Law states: "Negligence: Any act or omission which falls short of a standard to be expected of 'the reasonable man'. For a claim in negligence to succeed, it is necessary to establish that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant, that the duty was breached, that the claimant's loss was caused by the breach of duty and that the loss fell within the defendant's scope of duty and was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty".

                                          Elsewhere online (from a law firm) "Negligence is the most common tort, and can be defined as conduct which falls below the standard required to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm. Once a duty of care is established, any breach of that duty resulting in financial or personal injury falls under negligence law"

                                          So it would seem that it all revolves around duty of care - if it can be established that Mr Hill had a duty of care, was aware of the consequence of breaching it and that it was breached (even accidentally) then negligence may be proven. But then this is a layman interpreting something he read on the internet. Still, it may help clear up definitions here.
                                          www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
                                          It's all good. Probably.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X