THE families of the victims of the Shoreham Airshow disaster will fight to see safety measures introduced after the regulator rejected almost half the recommendations made.

A lawyer representing relatives of the 11 men who died on August 22, 2015, said they will continue to campaign to see safety rules introduced to prevent another tragedy.

The news comes as The Argus can exclusively reveal the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), rejected nine out of 21 safety recommendations proposed by the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) in the wake of the crash.

James Healy-Pratt, of Stewarts Law, who is acting for relatives of six victims, said: “The families will want these safety measures followed up or expect a very clear explanation of why they have not been.

“They don’t want this to happen again. It’s not good enough to simply ignore them [the recommendations].

“There is simply no room for buck passing. If they are not addressed, we will be raising this again at the inquest.”

He said the system was “imperfect” because the AAIB had no power to enforce the recommendations it makes.

He and the families would be pursuing other ways of making airshows safer by calling on the coroner to rule on the introduction of safety measures to prevent further deaths at the conclusion of the inquest.

MP Peter Kyle said regulators should not “pick and choose” which recommendations to accept and called on the Department for Transport to launch an independent review into the outstanding safety concerns because they were “too important” to ignore.

An AAIB report said the CAA had not adequately addressed 10 of its safety recommendations having rejected nine and is yet to complete another.

The regulator rejected advice on the distance between crowds and flying displays, requests to force organisers to demand a break-down of manoeuvres before a pilot takes to the sky, stricter risk assessment rules and changes to the way flying permits are issued.

The CAA argued some rules already in place adequately addressed the concerns and in other cases said the responsibility lied with airshow organisers instead.

Five recommendations were adequately addressed and the regulator went some way to act on four more but “further action” was required.

One of the recommendations was superceded by others so was no longer necessary, the AAIB said.

The body can only recommend the changes and does not have the power to force them to be introduced.

Mr Kyle said: “I have complete sympathy with the victims’ families and lawyers in their campaign to see these [safety measures] implemented in full.

“I’m a fan of airshows and the vast majority are safe but Shoreham exposed a weakness in regulation and that needs substantial changes.

“At the moment I’m not convinced that what happened in Shoreham could not happen again.”

A CAA spokesman said it was “inappropriate” to comment in more detail while an investigation was ongoing but said it was common for the status of recommendations to change before a final report is published.

He added: “We continue to work with the AAIB.”

WILL SOMEONE, ANYONE, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY HERE?

IN THE weeks and months after the Shoreham Airshow crash, mourning relatives and a community torn apart by the tragedy were assured things would change.

Aviation officials set to work immediately introducing a string of measures – including the grounding of all Hawker Hunters during the airshow season – to prevent another similar incident.

When investigators began to release their findings, several safety recommendations were made for the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which many took comfort in as a pledge to improve the practices of the industry. But the reality is, more than a year after the 11 men died, there is very little evidence to suggest this has taken place.

This news comes in a week where another delay to the inquest into the deaths is announced. We are still waiting for the AAIB to publish its full and final findings into the crash and Sussex Police said there has been no progress to report on their investigation.

The Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) said the CAA’s response to 10 of its 21 recommendations does not adequately address the safety issues concerned. Only five proposals were fully adopted and there is still work to do on four others. One was superseded by other work and no longer necessary.

Critics said this is not good enough but a CAA spokesman defended its efforts, explaining that during the course of a major investigation things can change. This indicates that while it has so far rejected some of the measures, it may adopt them in the future. Sometimes the measures can even be impossible to introduce or impractical, aviation experts have said.

But this is not the first time the regulator has come under fire for apparent inaction. In March some questioned whether it was fit for purpose after claims it had failed to act on lessons learnt from previous actions.

At the time, Hove MP Peter Kyle said it was clear the CAA had the power to intervene but had “failed in its duty” with Shoreham.

Lawyer James Healy-Pratt suggested there had been a potential systemic failure in the CAA after it emerged some safety recommendations were first made in 2007. The watchdog hit back saying the ultimate responsibility for airshows remain with the organisers. Those behind the Shoreham Airshow have previously said they will not comment until the investigation into the crash has concluded.

These questions remain: What is the point of these measures if they can simply be ignored? Who is ultimately accountable for enforcing them and ensuring the safety of the public when an airshow is taking place?

At the moment, it seems the answer is nothing and no one.

AIRSHOW SAFETY ‘DOWN TO ORGANISERS’

THE safety measures from the Air Accident Investigations Branch and how the Civil Aviation Authority responded include:

Not adequately addressed:

  • The CAA said it is the responsibility of airshow organisers to make sure they have conducted “suitable and sufficient” risk assessments.
  • The AAIB wants the CAA to require pilots to tell organisers the sequence of manoeuvres they plan to perform and over what area of ground in advance of the event so a proper risk assessment can be conducted. The CAA rejects this and said rules already in place are sufficient.
  • The CAA said its procedures to ensure permit-to-fly certificates are valid and adequate and do not need to be reviewed.
  • A request to ensure aircraft maintenance history is passed between owners, or organisations, for continuity is rejected by CAA.
  • CAA does not accept it should introduce more standards for technical publications about ex-military jet aircrafts because it “is not desirable or even possible” as each model is different.
  • The CAA will make sure aircrafts are a sufficient distance away from crowds during airshows to minimise the risk of injury, although nothing will be introduced until an independent study is completed next year. But it said it is the organiser’s job to make sure there is sufficient distance between crowds and airshow displays before they get permission for the event.
  • Requests for a permit to fly in a display to be renewed for each type of aircraft were rejected. The CAA said measures it introduced in January are sufficient.
  • Calls for a safety target for civil display flying in the UK was not “appropriate”, the CAA said, adding: “Air display flying carries inherent risks.”

Adequately addressed:

  • The CAA agreed to immediately suspend a pilot’s permission to fly at an airshow if their competency was in doubt.
  •  The CAA now requires pilots to confirm with airshow organisers their permit covers them for their stunts.
  • CAA agrees to tell operators of ex-military aircraft fitted with ejection seats to make sure hazard information is available.
  • It will review guidance on ejection seats and tells ex-military aircraft operators to comply with it.