Gnat crash at oulton park

[edarter]

Only saw the gnats display at Culdrose on Thursday, very sad. Blue skies sir....

[reach2911]

Often see these flying over my house to and from Northweald,to hear a pilot has been lost is very very sad .
My thoughts to all those involved particularly to the Family of Kevin Whyman. RIP.

[paullangford]

A memorial fund has been setup if you would like to contribute towards Kevin's family.

http://gogetfunding.com/in-loving-memor ... in-whyman/

[TankBuster]

I noticed this article on the BBC this morning about the Oulton Park incident. It's still very sad to read about .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36270047


TankBuster

[Sparts99]

I find that more than a bit disturbing. There are lots of questions if the figures given for his flying currency are correct, I thought part of the display authorisation procedure was that things like currency are checked and assessed to prevent situations like this.

[britaylor]

Very sad to see any aircraft/pilot loss anywhere but what is the CAA doing in letting a pilot with few hours doing displaying flying surly the CAA has got to amit that they got it wrong ? then bring bring these silly things out now about air show saftly and watching over the fence

[Vulcanone]

Thats why they have changed the rules post Oulton Park/Shoreham.

And to think Some are carping on about. Oh my display seasons been ruined.

I saw the aftermath of the MiGs at Fairford, And watched the Ryan NYP at Coventry. Oh and I saw the P-38, Bf109, and Firefly at Duxford and that was too many!

EDIT

AAIB Report here

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 5-2016.pdf

[JJC]

Vulcanone. Same as you, and I know Paddyboy has seen several, and I have seen a good few more in the States as well as those you have listed. It's not a perfect world out there, and tragedies like these lead to lessons being learned, and some of these lessons were overdue in my opinion. So, the show will be further away from the fence. Aircraft higher and not quite so dynamic. Live with it you guys, because IF there was to be another accident involving spectators, then for sure you can kiss your air displays goodbye!!!. And to anyone else who thinks that the CAA are possibly a bunch of nit-wits, then I can only admire your naivety. They are experts in their field, much more so than us!!!.

You're aware the Chief Executive worked in the rail industry until his appointment right...? 'Experts' you say....at paper pushing maybe.

The majority of casualties at Shoreham were not spectators, but passers-by. And certainly none of them were on the crowdline at the event. So please tell me how pushing display lines back even further away from the airfield, out over roads/built-up areas makes the possibility of a Shoreham-type event reoccurring less likely?

[JJC]

Evidently some involved in the CAA do have relevant expertise. But I don't think you can refer to all involved as 'experts' in the field of aviation.

To hell with safety? No, not at all. To hell with proportionality? In some respects it seems like it.

Shows held in the UK have been safe for the general public following Farnborough '52; evidenced by the lack of crashes at airshows resulting in the death of spectators on the crowdline, a fact still true today.

You have not answered my question, but merely dismissed it with the typical generic cry of 'safety' - how does pushing display lines further out from the airfield make displays safer & reduce the risk of an aircraft coming down on people outside of the airfield?

Nowhere did I say that nothing should be changed post-Shoreham/post-Oulton. The point I am making concerns the nature of the changes made - if they were made in reaction to the above events, both of which occurred outside the airfield perimeters, then I fail to see how pushing display aircraft further out over these areas improves safety in this respect.

Regulations around landing aircraft aren't being discussed here.I personally don't know if the States have aircraft landing further away/closer to the crowd than we in the UK do, so perhaps you could enlighten me in this regard?

[andrewn]

In isolation the Gnat crash, tragic as was, could have been taken as a timely reminder to all concerned that the existing rules and regs related to civil air displays and display flying of privately owned, complex ex-mil jets were in need of thorough review.

Unfortunately, with the Shoreham tragedy following so soon after, that window for sensible and proportionate change closed for good.

Hence we are where we are and probably should be grateful, for now at least, that all airshows have not been completely outlawed.

Just my opinion.

[ArabJazzie]

Very sad. !2 hours average over the last flying time over the last five years???. In my day that was the lowest necessary to retain my PPL on innocuous Cessnas and things, not a pilot biter like the Gnat!!. Experience is what keeps pilots alive!.

Thinking that youve had a bit of finger trouble there good buddy, i think ive worked out what you mean and wonder if thats the best balance between keeping competent and affording to operate the aircraft. With other things ive seen mentioned, as i have not read the whole report yet, i seriously doubt we will see much of any civil owned fast jet at air shows in the future!
Arabest,
Geoff.

[JJC]

To try and answer your question. Obviously, distance is time, and is therefore safer for pilots and spectators. Altitude combined with speed is also safety. Aircraft displaying will frequently fly beyond the field, of course. To minimise risk to people outside, there must [in the CAA's view, I guess,] be more height and less steep turns to safeguard the public [outside the airfield] Pulling hard 'g' through a 90deg bank is not as safe as 45 deg. Therefore, giving everybody more margin HAS to be a good idea. Another accident outside the airfield will not be tolerated by Joe Public, and, post Shoreham, the CAA HAS to be seen to be doing something to make it safer. We are stuck with this, whether we like it or not.
As an aside, I have felt at many shows, more in the U.S perhaps than here, that there is potential for a very serious accident involving the crowd, merely by having an undercarriage collapse on the crowd side of the aircraft, which makes it very difficult for directional control to be maintained. I have seen it happen, but it stopped just short of the spectators. Lucky.
JJC Sorry. Hadn't read your edit. Certainly at Oshkosh some very high performance aircraft land parallel and close to the crowd.

I don't disagree with you regarding the height of aeros etc. Certainly that can be rationalised easily. In addition, the more stringent requirements for the pilots to have more time on type etc. are sensible moves imho.

That is true - I suppose in some respects we are lucky to have an industry left after last year. However, I think these regulations should, rightly, be challenged/criticised and debated in the open in order to tease out the best ideas from all sides. Criticism, if valid and constructive, leads to the best possible decisions moving forwards.

I see. I had imagined the Americans to be slightly more 'risky' perhaps in certain circumstances, and can understand your concern in these situations. I have not, personally, ever experienced an accident at an airshow (in 16 years of attending) so cannot comment on the effect that must have. However, I have never felt unsafe whilst watching a display in the UK either.

[KarlADrage]

The display line being pushed back is a consequence of the Bronco crash at Cotswold Airport (Kemble), where debris would have ended up amongst the crowd had it been an actual airshow and not a practice. It has nothing to do with the Shoreham crash.

[ArabJazzie]

The display line being pushed back is a consequence of the Bronco crash at Cotswold Airport (Kemble), where debris would have ended up amongst the crowd had it been an actual airshow and not a practice. It has nothing to do with the Shoreham crash.

Thing is though, the CAA has historical evidence that could push the display line at an airfield back even further.
Arabest,
Geoff.

[page_verify]

It's good to see the CAA responding - I'm sure lots of people would have complained if after an eventful display season in 2015 it just sat back and said in future it'd dot the i's and cross the t's of its existing regulations. They will have known just hours after the Gnat crash that the pilot was woefully inexperienced and that something had to change. The same for whatever was the root cause of the Shoreham incident. They can't however jump to conclusions so must do their due diligence. If word on the street is correct and the Hunters are grounded because of a lack of ejection seat OEM support then I suspect they may never leave the runway again. We shall see.