Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
The 'top gate' is irrelevant if you fail to start with correct parameters for entry. with a 380kt run-up and full power, then I would expect 7-8000ft over the top with a sensitive pull . Use a bit more G and you get a pleasing 5000ft.
Use less power and it's not so simple.
The Black Arrows looped a lot of hunters.
wets
Use less power and it's not so simple.
The Black Arrows looped a lot of hunters.
wets
118.9 - you'd also need stall speed, profile and induced drag coefficients & g-limit to do that calculation (and a computer - but you could do that in Excel easily enough).
G
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 5th Feb 2016 at 11:14.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wing performance you need to know....and how they perform with different flap settings.
The equation is really one of working out the acceleration as the hunter descends inverted and assuming that max possible g is maintained until straight and level.
The equation is really one of working out the acceleration as the hunter descends inverted and assuming that max possible g is maintained until straight and level.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRT wrote:
+1
Has anyone seen a copy of the CAA's risk assessment for this event, or did they delegate that task when authorising the air show?
How do these things work? Does anyone do a proper EASA/ICAO risk assessment, or is it just a nod and a wink from one good old boy to another?
When you're pulling out of a looping maneuver over a crowded highway... well, you shouldn't EVER be pulling out of a looping maneuver over a crowded highway. Or a crowded anything.
Has anyone seen a copy of the CAA's risk assessment for this event, or did they delegate that task when authorising the air show?
How do these things work? Does anyone do a proper EASA/ICAO risk assessment, or is it just a nod and a wink from one good old boy to another?
With respect to theoretical height loss from apex to completion of a loop, the minimum radius will be achieved by maintaining the maximum usable angle of attack. Therefore, what is needed is knowledge of the lift coefficient that can be achieved. The lift curve slope of the wing will vary as a function of both Mach number and Reynold's number although below about 0.5M the predominant effect will be from Reynold's number. Therefore, the maximum angle of attack and, de facto, lift coefficient will probably vary throughout the manoeuvre. Unless the aircraft is above corner speed, the normal acceleration achieved is irrelevant although its value will be used for any height loss calculation. Drag will indeed affect the speed profile through the second half of a loop but thrust will also have an effect; it is thrust - drag that will determine the actual speed profile and thus the radius.
When pulling through at maximum angle of attack with a maximum speed that is below 0.5M and is below corner speed, the height loss variation as a function of the speed profile is actually less than many may intuitively think.
When pulling through at maximum angle of attack with a maximum speed that is below 0.5M and is below corner speed, the height loss variation as a function of the speed profile is actually less than many may intuitively think.
How do these things work? Does anyone do a proper EASA/ICAO risk assessment, or is it just a nod and a wink from one good old boy to another?
Appendix A, CAP403.
There isn't an EASA/ICAO risk assessment matrix for airshows, but the CAP 403 covers the requirements. The EASA/ICAO SMS matrix is sometimes overkill for some requirements and not inclusive enough for others, it isn't a one size fits all RA. I have no doubt that an airport like Shoreham has an SMS integral with their core business, which would be used and enhanced for 'display' events adding the requirements of CAP403 and CAA Doc.743.
I know first hand of a work up to DA by a crew last year, prior to Shoreham, and I can assure you that SMS/CAP403/Doc743 and even H&S at work (snore) were all covered in the planning.
Appendix A, CAP403.
There isn't an EASA/ICAO risk assessment matrix for airshows, but the CAP 403 covers the requirements. The EASA/ICAO SMS matrix is sometimes overkill for some requirements and not inclusive enough for others, it isn't a one size fits all RA. I have no doubt that an airport like Shoreham has an SMS integral with their core business, which would be used and enhanced for 'display' events adding the requirements of CAP403 and CAA Doc.743.
I know first hand of a work up to DA by a crew last year, prior to Shoreham, and I can assure you that SMS/CAP403/Doc743 and even H&S at work (snore) were all covered in the planning.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Petition
Ask Civil Aviation Authority to rethink their charges to the 2016 Airshow season
6,438 signatures at time of this posting
Ask Civil Aviation Authority to rethink their charges to the 2016 Airshow season
6,438 signatures at time of this posting
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liability etc
The aviation insurers on behalf of the owner of the Hunter, admitted civil liability under Section 76 (2) to various families whom lost loved ones last year. That Statute means what is says, and the facts of the accident as known, are more than sufficient for the admission to be given. There will now be no High Court trial on the civil liability of the operator of the Hunter to the families whom lost loved ones, as that issue has been dealt with.
That should not be confused with the roles of the Inquest, and the current criminal investigation by the Sussex Police.
That should not be confused with the roles of the Inquest, and the current criminal investigation by the Sussex Police.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there may still be a civil action if the insurers decide that someone or some organisation was not complying with the T&C's of their insurance document.
Therefore the insurer may decide to issue civil proceedings to claim back their full 'expenses' incurred in meeting their obligations under 76(2).
Therefore the insurer may decide to issue civil proceedings to claim back their full 'expenses' incurred in meeting their obligations under 76(2).
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swiss Cheese
Yes the facts are 'G-BXFI crashed killing several people' therefore, the insurers for G-BXFI have paid out under the policy.
Agree with DSC810
The reason for the crash has not been established, thereby it can't be ascertained at present if the insurance company will make a counter claim on another insurance policy such as the maintenance organisations or airshow organisers.
I believe that this is standard practice in the insurance world, after all they are a business and wish to make money, like any other business. It is not being mean, stingy etc
Does anyone else still find it odd that the cartridges made in 2008 were not fitted until November 2012. Considering that previously there had been long wait times for them and I would imagine they are very expensive. Although, I expect the AAIB have checked with the sole supplier in the UK and all other Hunters and are able to trace them through records held by the supplier, MB and maintenance organisation records.
I think it maybe a long wait for the final report, but there will be several interim reports as the investigation progresses.
Yes the facts are 'G-BXFI crashed killing several people' therefore, the insurers for G-BXFI have paid out under the policy.
Agree with DSC810
The reason for the crash has not been established, thereby it can't be ascertained at present if the insurance company will make a counter claim on another insurance policy such as the maintenance organisations or airshow organisers.
I believe that this is standard practice in the insurance world, after all they are a business and wish to make money, like any other business. It is not being mean, stingy etc
Does anyone else still find it odd that the cartridges made in 2008 were not fitted until November 2012. Considering that previously there had been long wait times for them and I would imagine they are very expensive. Although, I expect the AAIB have checked with the sole supplier in the UK and all other Hunters and are able to trace them through records held by the supplier, MB and maintenance organisation records.
I think it maybe a long wait for the final report, but there will be several interim reports as the investigation progresses.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
liability etc part 2
Interestingly, the aviation insurers of the Agusta 109 Vauxhall crash tried to claim against the CAA in the High Court, and they recently lost. That may be a straw in the wind here. In many ways it all comes down to the proximate cause of the loss, which as a famous US Chief Justice once described as trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Aviation insurers do not automatically pay out of course, as there may be invalidation of the insurance itself (breach of ANO etc), or there may be more complex matters to consider (e.g. Malaysian Airlines 370 and 17).
Aviation insurers do not automatically pay out of course, as there may be invalidation of the insurance itself (breach of ANO etc), or there may be more complex matters to consider (e.g. Malaysian Airlines 370 and 17).
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the insurers are 100% certain that the aircraft complied with the ANO then and was fully serviceable at the time.
Even though the AAIB have queried that the aircraft had out of date cartridges fitted and therefore doesn't meet the ANO which in turn raised the question that should the PtF been applied for and granted.
If it is discovered the aircraft was flying and shouldn't have been. Does this mean it is the fault of the CAA who issued the PtF for not undertaking through checks or the person/organisation applying for the PtF and declaring the aircraft had complied with the ANO etc.
I am presuming that the CAA when a request is received undertake a check of the aircraft itself and the books to confirm all is in order.
Think the insurance company have paid interim payments whilst they await further information as to cause and therefore liability, they will make a counter claim against another policy if there are other factors I am sure. As I would have thought non-compliance with the ANO would invalidate the insurance.
Even though the AAIB have queried that the aircraft had out of date cartridges fitted and therefore doesn't meet the ANO which in turn raised the question that should the PtF been applied for and granted.
If it is discovered the aircraft was flying and shouldn't have been. Does this mean it is the fault of the CAA who issued the PtF for not undertaking through checks or the person/organisation applying for the PtF and declaring the aircraft had complied with the ANO etc.
I am presuming that the CAA when a request is received undertake a check of the aircraft itself and the books to confirm all is in order.
Think the insurance company have paid interim payments whilst they await further information as to cause and therefore liability, they will make a counter claim against another policy if there are other factors I am sure. As I would have thought non-compliance with the ANO would invalidate the insurance.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southampton, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC report:
Well the loss of cars is reported in earnest, the reporting of the human loss was relegated to about an appendix to the article!
The vintage jet fell to the ground on a busy road during a rolling manoeuvre, destroying a number of vehicles and bursting into flames.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Like a recent report in our local rag: "a BMW was badly damaged after it collided with a tree" instead of "a **** used his BMW to destroy a publicly owned tree".
"Even though the AAIB have queried that the aircraft had out of date cartridges fitted and therefore doesn't meet the ANO which in turn raised the question that should the PtF been applied for and granted.
If it is discovered the aircraft was flying and shouldn't have been. Does this mean it is the fault of the CAA who issued the PtF for not undertaking through checks or the person/organisation applying for the PtF and declaring the aircraft had complied with the ANO etc. "
While I understand that the legalistic approach inevitably starts down that road at some point, what on earth would having out of date ejection seat cartridges have to do with the cause of an accident such as this?
I struggle to see how anyone can view this accident as in any serious way the direct responsibility of the CAA. Surely they set the rules for the aircraft operators - us - to follow. It is our job to show that we are complying as reasonably well as we can, or to justify any deviations. They have a duty to check on us to see we are doing as required, but surely the responsibility stops with us?
If the notion that the CAA is responsible was to gain ground, I see a future nightmare for private aviation at least in the UK.
If it is discovered the aircraft was flying and shouldn't have been. Does this mean it is the fault of the CAA who issued the PtF for not undertaking through checks or the person/organisation applying for the PtF and declaring the aircraft had complied with the ANO etc. "
While I understand that the legalistic approach inevitably starts down that road at some point, what on earth would having out of date ejection seat cartridges have to do with the cause of an accident such as this?
I struggle to see how anyone can view this accident as in any serious way the direct responsibility of the CAA. Surely they set the rules for the aircraft operators - us - to follow. It is our job to show that we are complying as reasonably well as we can, or to justify any deviations. They have a duty to check on us to see we are doing as required, but surely the responsibility stops with us?
If the notion that the CAA is responsible was to gain ground, I see a future nightmare for private aviation at least in the UK.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wallingford
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite astonishing that the FDD 'was not provided with or was not aware of the display sequence.' Marry this up with what CAP 403 states about not doing ad-hoc and unrehearsed manoeuvres. The FDD would therefore not have known, could not have known, if he was or wasn't witnessing an impromptu manoeuvre or two. Granted, G-BXFI's routine may have been to script, perhaps a flawed script, but how can a FDD manage aerial safety if he doesn't know what the pilot is going to do?
Although Canada, Australia, USA and other display regimes are stated, South Africa has a rather onerous but simple system. Full written display sequences (entry height, speed, direction, linking manoeuvres and the whole nine yards) must reach the FDD well before the show. Then, all aircraft doing aerobatics must do a validation in front of the FDD - no validation, no display. And finally, all display pilots must personally attend a safety briefing by the FDD (often multiple briefings are held to accommodate those far away).
And finally, my hobbyhorse again: Ban downward vertical pull-through manoeuvres in high inertia jets. Had these been banned, this Thread wouldn't exist.
Although Canada, Australia, USA and other display regimes are stated, South Africa has a rather onerous but simple system. Full written display sequences (entry height, speed, direction, linking manoeuvres and the whole nine yards) must reach the FDD well before the show. Then, all aircraft doing aerobatics must do a validation in front of the FDD - no validation, no display. And finally, all display pilots must personally attend a safety briefing by the FDD (often multiple briefings are held to accommodate those far away).
And finally, my hobbyhorse again: Ban downward vertical pull-through manoeuvres in high inertia jets. Had these been banned, this Thread wouldn't exist.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So reading through that report and the others from the AAIB so far. My understanding is as follows:-
The aircraft shouldn't have been flying at all (airshow or otherwise) as the maintenance organisation had effectively mis-declared that the aircraft was fit to fly as it had out of date items and therefore should not have had a renewed permit.
The Pilot should not have been given a DA by his mate in the team. As both broke the PtF by displaying/flying over congested areas and the conflict in interest.
The FDD had not complied with CAP403 correctly either as no risk assessment for this aircraft had been carried out.
But until the final report is made we are still non the wiser as to cause of the crash, just that there were at least 3 reasons the jet shouldn't have been there.
The aircraft shouldn't have been flying at all (airshow or otherwise) as the maintenance organisation had effectively mis-declared that the aircraft was fit to fly as it had out of date items and therefore should not have had a renewed permit.
The Pilot should not have been given a DA by his mate in the team. As both broke the PtF by displaying/flying over congested areas and the conflict in interest.
The FDD had not complied with CAP403 correctly either as no risk assessment for this aircraft had been carried out.
But until the final report is made we are still non the wiser as to cause of the crash, just that there were at least 3 reasons the jet shouldn't have been there.