Typhoon Close Call At RIAT

[Just This Once...]

Typhoon Close Call At RIAT this pm.

How close can an ac get to an accident? Sooooo much alpha, soooo near the ground. Glad for him that he got away with it (and for half the RAF in the corporate hospitality area, I think we were all a little taken aback at the proximity).

Fair decision to knock-off all of the low display and vertical manoeuvres after that. Indeed, I was kind of surprised that he did not go straight home after monstering the base height. I’d love to see a replay just to see the nose down angle when it all went wrong, as well as the clearance from the deck as the sink rate was finally arrested.

[BEagle]

I reckon it was around 30 ft. Allegedly there was significant ground scorching from the engines.

Something obviously went seriously wrong; I suspect that a change of underwear was in order afterwards.

It's the closest I've seen to an airshow disaster; up until then the display was pretty damn impressive!

[Conan the Librarian]

Have seen the video (I am northside) and it was frightneng indeed. The Typhoon pilot is lucky to be walking tonight. I would estimate A/C still descending at about 25 feet AGL

The Typhoon (other A/C) has just done a rehearsal about 40 mins ago, so it may well be in the show after all.

I think tonight, I shall raise a glass to to one very lucky chap indeed. I am still shaking my head in disbelief.

We are all lucky sometimes.

Conan

[BEagle]

Too right!

[Maple 01]

Photo

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=45485

Bloody hell!

[Noise_Jammer]

I was in the corporate challet at east end. It was close, right in front of us :uhoh: , lowest point less than the height of the fin at a guess.
Some photos of it climbing out and it was v low then.
So many ooohs and a huge sigh as he pulled away.
Seen clips like that before but not for real, or with such good outcomes, actually thought about where to run, along with others around me. We watched expecting him to bangout.
Interesting to see what happens tomorrow!!!:hmm:
NJ

[pr00ne]

That was SO close! I was enjoying a day of corporate hospitality, strolling along with an ex Buccaneer Nav and a friend who has no aviation connections, when I stopped them all to watch the Typhoon practice display.

It was an excellent routine, but when I saw it descend below the level of the hangar opposite the runway still going downhill at one hell of a rate of knots with a worryingly high angle of attack I froze. I was convinced he had left it too late and was just waiting for the bang, either of impact or Martin Baker. With an enormous tongue of flame and a deafening roar he managed to miss the ground, by around 20 feet I would guess.

I turned to ex Buc Nav to see him white as a sheet, even my legal mate asked if that sort of thing was normal. Apparently I was as white as a sheet too.

How come the normally fiercesome Flying Display Committee did not order a land right away?

That has to be the closest I have ever been to seeing an airshow accident, do 29 (R) have more than one authorised display pilot?

[Just This Once...]

A good few of us thought he was going to have to leave the aeroplane. Given the proximity of it to the chalet I had already decided that running was not going to help...

I wondered if pulling through earlier crossed his mind, although that would have put him through the crowd line, albeit at a greater recovery height.

After years of wizzing about at high speed / low level, getting monstered on the ground would have been a little too ironic for Mrs JTO. Still, that kind of alpha is not exactly an option on the Tornado.

JTO

[Chris Kebab]

I was staggered he stayed with it, one very very lucky bunny. He must have been shi**ing himself.

Rather took the edge off the afternoon for me. I was reminded of the two good F-4 mates who pancaked in at Abingdon lacking the few extra feet that matey today had.

[Bigtop]

Nice pic on the aviation forum web.
Anyone have any video footage of the display practice?

[L Peacock]

Have seen a work up to this display. What was the manouevre?

[treadigraph]

It's the closest I've seen to an airshow disaster; up until then the display was pretty damn impressive!

Given you longevity around aeroplanes, you've been a lucky sod then BEags, and from the sound of it so was Mate in the Typhoon. Long may you both be so fortunate...

Please stay safe, it's been a shyte eight days.

[BOAC]

Reminiscent of the Strikemaster at F'boro in 76 too. That got extremely low after three-penny-bitting the bottom of the loop.

I do not think ejection would have been an option with a high r.o.d?

I would, however, have expected to see more 'alpha' on the fore-plane?

[Speedpig]

Amazing picture. It appears that he is now climbing in that so was clearly lower at some point.
Is there any method by which we could calculate his height using the red and white pole behind?... his position on field vs the position of the pole etc?... are the markings on the pole a set measurement? (they look about 6ft compared to the blue van)... next question is... what is the pole for anyway? Looks like flood level marker,

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Calling all TYPHOO Drivers

Has anyone considered that this was part of the display, or even thought of asking the guy driving at the time if this was normal?

What about talking to a Typhoo driver for an opinion before you all crucify this one?

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol indeced

[Speedpig]

What about talking to a Typhoo driver for an opinion before you all crucify this one?

I was more of the opinion that he was being congratulated on a magnificent recovery.... unless he meant it, in which case he should still be:ok:

[Magoodotcom]

The pic on the Key publishing site is a little ambiguous. Anyone got any more of the close call, perhaps from side on?

[Ian Corrigible]

There's a better shot by the same photographer at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nick.blacow/riat1507/close.jpg.

I/C

[GeeRam]

It's actually by a different photographer to the other one;)

Clearly seen in this one is the dirt and grass debris from the jet efflux.......:ooh:

[PPRuNe Pop]

Nick Blacow puts his pics on PPRuNe first and you can see that one and others he took over two days - so far - on AH&N.

[Navaleye]

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the de-brief after that one :( I have sneaking feeling that it went as planned but 100ft too low.

[comedyjock]

JSP 550 gives absolute minimas for displays with 50ft for helos doing hovering and 100ft for fixed wing. Think he must want to be a rotary pilot!!

[adr]

If anyone's got video (in a digital format) and wants to share it with us but is wondering how, then know that for $4.95 USD you can have a video clip hosted

No connection with that service other than as an occasional consumer.

PS Hosting a video there and passing on the link is unlikely to bring sundry unnamed systems crawling to a halt (cfr attaching it to a message which is forwarded many times). ;)

adr

That, adr, is advertising and is deleted.

[comedyjock]

Look here for the best pic so far
http://www.ukar.co.uk/board/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=10;t=4868;st=20

[The Real Slim Shady]

Frankly, I don't give a twopenny stuff whether the pilot screwed up - he learned something, and he won't do it agian, and someone with less ability might just be persuaded not to even try it - or gets bollocked.

He lived to talk about it.

Folks, we got a result. Our colleague is still with us.

[Maude Charlee]

Just thinking back to the now infamous Thunderbirds crash - when on earth would you decide to eject during a manoeuvre like that? Hank obviously did, our guy didn't. Would it have been obvious to the guy that he was going to make it after all, despite how close it appears?

Not criticising, just curious. It's real big balls stuff. :ooh:

[oldfella]

Enough guys have piled in showing off. This was a display pilot flying a professional display, not just cuffing it, and something went wrong. It wil come out in the wash, let's just be grateful that the result is a mate still walking this earth and no hole in the ground.

[Capt H Peacock]

Lucky indeed. Would anybody care to comment on whether the Airbus'esque care free handling of the Typhoon is better than a steely hand nibbling the buffet?

[The Nr Fairy]

It's unlikely that what happened will make its way onto PPRuNe.

However, I do hope the pilot's story will make its way, in the manner of these things, to display pilots of similar types - preferably over a beer or two, and it may well stop someone else stoofing in.

[L Peacock]

Captain H

I believe Typhoon has a detented full back stick, giving that little bit extra when required in extremis. Still presumably controlled within a defined FCS envelope.

[BEagle]

Fact - Something didn't go as planned.

Fact - The reason isn't known.

But if the pilot later flew his display in the other aircraft and it was approved, the root cause is unlikely to have been pilot proficiency, I would venture to suggest.

Remember the MiG 29 prang at Paris? Initial speculation was that the pilot had porked it; however, it was later seen to have ingested a bird and lost a lot of thrust as a result. That very clever Russian seat saved him!

Congratulations to the Typhoon mate for getting back on the horse so quickly afterwards - and proving himself so capable!

[ZH875]

But if the pilot later flew his display in the other aircraft and it was approved, the root cause is unlikely to have been pilot proficiency, I would venture to suggest.But as Typhoon is entirely fly by wire, and the two jets would have the same FCS software loaded, it might be that the root cause may have something to do with pilot proficiency, I would venture to suggest.

[StopStart]

Ah, but as you well know lots of bits of the J (for example) are all software driven and all those systems perform the same on each 'frame without any glitches don't they.......? All it takes is a stray wigglyamp or a duff sensor input and away you go.

[ZH875]

But the J is not Fly by wire, and therefore much of the software is not subject to the same standards and safety standards that are carried out on the FCS software.

Personally I am not bothered at the reason or outcome of whatever was the cause/problem as long as the crew and joe public are safe, and my xx Million pounds of taxpayers money is in one piece. It just shows the sheer power and agility of this aircraft, how many modern fighters would have recovered?.

[Man-on-the-fence]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nick.blacow/riat1507/close.jpg

The image in question. I am not a Pilot but I have been photographing airshows for 20 years and that was the closest to the ground I have seen a fast jet come with his wheels up. I honestly though I was about to photograph an accident.

The important thing is that he walked away and had the raw nerve to fly again that evening (without the flick before the high alpha pass).

That is worth credit where it is due IMHO.

[buoy15]

Plaudits all round I see

What will the BOI say ?

The pilot nearly failed to comply with the display instructions ?

The ac narrowly avoided crashing during the agreed display profile ?

That spectacular display manoeuvre had not been ratified by the AOC !

This was a dangerous situation which threatened the safety of the ac, the pilot and the public.

And so on !

Or will he get a Green Endorsment in his Log Book for saving a valuable aeroplane ?

You've only got too much fuel when your on fire!!

[Navaleye]

I have seen some more photos and I would say he came within 25ft of the deck. I would class that as an arse gripping experience in anyone's book. Well done for staying with it and saving the RAF and BWoS from a very embarrasing situation. Presumably the bang out handle is in the usual place on a Typhoon. I would imagine his hand was quite near it at some point. I have a hard time imagining this was a pilot induced problem.

[Speedpig]

He was lucky, he put the ac in a postition where it was difficult to recover, in other words, he messed up.

You presumably were in the cockpit with him to know that? What a ridiculous statement

Why should we be giving him credit?

Again, what a ridiculous statement.
The guy has made a miraculous recovery of a very dangerous/life threatening situation.
Think he desreves a pat on the back first, then criticism if it is later proved to be pilot error

[Ali Barber]

Actually, at a public airshow, I believe he should be red carded for at least the rest of the day. Politically too sensitive to red card the BWOS jet for the whole show, but it would give the pilot time to contemplate his mortality (and those of the punters), a comprehensive debrief with the engineers/show organisers, and then make a decision on what to do next. There are only 3 possible causes, missed a key height, wrong speed/amount of 'G', or a technical problem. I would imagine that once he realised how close it was going to be, he was probably outside seat parameters.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

I wouln't agree with that; the video iof the Thunderbird pilot jumping out in similar circumstances suggests a modern seat would have coped.

SBG

[Flap62]

Rather confused about "well done to that chap, marvellous skill saved him and the aircraft". If you're ever in a situation even close to that you will know that he parked the throttle top left, pulled like a bugger and hoped for the best. Lucky yes, skilful hmmm!

[grobace]

I won't comment on the background to this incident, though by all accounts it was a bit hairy. However, as an erstwhile display pilot (1970 vintage!!) I will make some informed comment on the likelihood or otherwise of someone in a similar position ejecting.
Displaying any aircraft at low level entails a risk. Every display pilot knows which manoeuvres in his display put him closest to the limits and he will have thought of the likely pointers that all is not going to plan and will have his escape routes pre-programmed. That is not to say that mistakes or errors of judgement will not occur. I can think of 2 such incidents in the 3 seasons I did (others might have witnessed more!) and in neither case did the thought of pulling the handle enter my head.
I ocassionally flew practice displays with 'rookie' back seaters who - mad fools that they were - wanted to 'experience it'. Part of my briefing to them concerned ejection. I admitted that I really didn't know what I'd do if I screwed up, whether I'd try to correct the pigs, or accept the inevitable and try to save my skin. However, if they felt they were about to die, then they should not think twice, they were just to pull the bottom handle and go.
Incidentally, on the 2 occasions I did get into a spot of bother, the back-seater (my regular one, as it happens) didn't think about ejecting either!

[ShyTorque]

Oh what a lot of know-it-alls ready to kick a man when he's down!

Take M. Schumacher Esq. Probably the greatest F1 driver the world has ever seen. I don't personally like the bloke but so what, I don't deny him his accolade. Now, if he spun his Ferrari on the hairpin corner but went on to win the Grand Prix race, everyone would say how brilliant he is. Nothing much different here.

This pilot got away with his life and the aircraft, after something went not quite right for him, by the skin of his teeth. Good on him, he would have been perfectly justified in pulling the stripey handle which would have lost the aircraft for us, the taxpayer and spoiled the day for all (except perhaps the detracters).

It appears that afterwards he sat down, thought about what had happened, went up and flew it again and got it right. As a professional should. Good on him again.

Those wanting to pour scorn, better wait until you have displayed an aircraft yourself and understand what it's all about.

P.S. Great piccies, Thanks!

[flipster]

ShyTH

Spot on - give the pilot his due! Indeed, it was a close call but even Typhoon drivers are human and humans make mistakes, even the best....... don't we?!

To any detractors and 'yes-but-he-porked it' wailers -

"let who he is without sin cast the first stone"

(and if you have never flown low-level displays - please keep quiet!)

Whatever the reason, it takes a brave person to get back on his horse so soon after a fall - so well done chap!

(tho' he probably needed a change of underwear!)

Flip

[Jackonicko]

Did the Typhoon's sophisticated FBW FCS save the day by giving the pilot complete confidence that however hard he pulled the aircraft wouldn't depart?

Or would the ability to pull just a bit harder than the 'hard FCS limit' and accept that there would be a progressive increase in the risk of departure allowed him to pull it round with just a bit more separation from the ground?

Or does Typhoon have a detent on the stick, giving a 'soft' limit?

I was once talking to a well known display pilot of yesteryear, whose speciality included some very low pullouts from manoeuvres - he always aimed to be able to safely recover from a loop with a normal pullout at height X, but at airshows just pulled slightly less hard during the final part of the recovery and gave the crowd the illusion of pulling out low - about X/2.

[LowObservable]

From the looks of it I thought you were flying, Jacko...

From the descriptions and photos, it looked a lot like a repeat of the Flanker at Paris in 1999, the crucial difference being that the Flanker zeroed its descent rate at a small but crucial negative AGL. (If you remember, they wiped out the tail but managed to force the damaged aircraft up to a point where they could eject.)

The following applies if there was nothing wrong with the aircraft...

The lesson is that when pointed downhill at a few hundred knots, without a lot of lift on them, fighters accelerate really, really fast. Whether you are too low or too fast at the top of that kind of descending manoeuvre, or don't pull hard or early enough, or whatever, it doesn't take much to eat that 100 feet that you planned to have left at the bottom. And you can find yourself very quickly in one of those embarrassing ye-canna-alter-the-laws-of-physics-Jim situations...

It's also an unnatural act; it's not the way fighters are flown at high speed near the ground. It's not something that operational pilots are trained to do.

And before we jump in and say "screwed the pooch", look at the EF pilot-vehicle interface and the impact of carefee handling. Does it lead to disconnection and over-confidence? Are there any "why'd it do that?" issues (like early Airbus experience, remember Mulhouse)? Did the computer understand what the pilot was trying to do? (Mulhouse again.)

Is it good judgment on the part of BAE or the RAF to have an operational pilot demo the aircraft in that scenario? Fort Worth has long had a cadre of demo pilots who are specialists within the company test pilot force. If anyone can recall any mishap, or even any of that group getting spanked for busting minima, let me know.

Interesting aside: I wonder how important the vertical component of the thrust was in maintaining the positive AGL? With the alpha he had on he was almost like a Harrier in STO mode...

Further to the physics issue, I was reminded of this:

http://www.pioneer.net/~fitzrr/zell.jpg

[L Peacock]

There have been many similar close calls and accidents over the decades with conventional, semi FBW and pure FBW aircraft. Would be very surprised if FCS was much of a factor here; (if it had been, surely the plug would have been pulled until the RAF/BAE undertsood more).

Low Obs. Company demo pilots are not immortal sadly.

[backseatjock]

When an aircraft is in operational service, as Typhoon now is, it is quite normal for the operator to display an aircraft using one of its own pilots with suffient experience on type.

BAE, as other manufacturers, has a cadre of display pilots of its own but this aircraft was from an operation RAF squadron. There was nothing unusual about the display being flown by a RAF pilot who is, it should be considered, among the service's most experienced Typhoon jocks.

As others have said, thankfully both pilot and aircraft lived to fly another day - same day, in fact, with a further two sorties in the same aircraft taking place on Friday.

[LowObservable]

There is nothing unusual about a display being flown by a service pilot. Sadly, there is also nothing new about displays (some by company pilots, some by service pilots) ending in avoidable disasters when a fully serviceable aircraft, flying within its normal envelope in broad daylight and with an experienced pilot, strikes the ground. (Blackhawk, Farnborough 1974, A-10, Paris 1977, two Tigersharks...)
The Typhoon driver narrowly missed getting added to this list, and I'm wondering what we should all have learned from earlier accidents to avoid this sort of thing.
And it is certainly not the case that company pilots are immortal (cf Tigershark). However, if it's indeed the case that some operators/companies have a long and clean record it might be interesting to look at how they do it.

[Tigs2]

Ok ready for a rant!!!

I am compelled to write on this one because of the huge amount of Sh**e i am reading. some of you have made me want to use many expletives but i wont (perhaps just rhyming words).

Flipster(i know you really well mate) you are absolutely right, if you are not a pilot, not a display pilot, not a high performance aircraft display pilot, then shut the cluck up!

Ali Barber - All this crap about outside seat peramiters - bulls**t
Senga - i hope after your comment that youve never made a mistake in your aviation career (and if your career isnt aviation then sod off!)

I dont know what happened, but lets give the bad mouthers the benifit of the doubt, lets imagine it was pilot error. There is not one pilot on this forum that is not capable of putting an aircraft into a dangerous situation! I bet there are only a handful of pilots on this forum that would have the skill and kuhhoonas to pull off a recovery like this guy did. He showed an imense amount of moral courage to stick with it (some of you will call it stupidity), and THEN get back in the jet and carry on. Dont know the guy, but if he porked it (there but for the grace of god ...!), he got his way out of it, then he had the balls to carry on (regardsless of the cause) at a time when most of us would have been on our 5th scotch.
This is whats known as the 'right stuff!'

for some of you if he would have crashed you would call him a banker
if he would have banged out you would call him a banker
he pulled off an amazing recovery, and you still call him a Banker

lady luck must always smile down upon you when your in th s**t (i know i have been there enough and without her i'd be toast), its not just a skillset that gets you out of trouble- read Chuck Yeager. I often enjoy the comments from wannabees and non pilot types on this forum, but on this occasion you dont know, you can't empathise(that means youve never done it!) so keep it to yourselves. I wouldnt dream of telling an engineer how to fit an 'offle waffle grommit valve' to an aircraft - because they're qualified and im not! point made! i hope so.
Rant Over

Who ever you are, whatever the reason, you did bloody well mate. Saved an expensive aircraft, and BAes reputation AND most importantly your life. Nice one!

[Jackonicko]

LO,

Do I know you? Are you referring to my Bulldog routine (I thought it inspired, and da judge almost agreed - 'Insiperd?' 'Insipid?' I think he said, something like that), or my equally impressive Chipmunk sequence? Or are you referring to the proximity of the twigs and branches, and recalling Blaniks?

Either way, surely to God it wasn't bad enough for you to remember 20 years on? Was it?

I need a beer to cry into now.....

Tigs,

Loosen up, old boy. Only Flap 62 and Senga made anything approaching criticism of the pilot, while Ali Barber\'s red card comment is what usually happens - regardless of whether any blame is attached - on a \'better safe than sorry\' basis. Many others on this thread have offered or inferred support, admiration or praise for Matt, and deservedly so.

I don\'t see much evidence of anyone feeling anything but:

a) Profound relief that a popular bloke got away with it safely.

b) That he\'s a lucky bloke, and one who didn\'t do anything that any of us might not do one day, when we fly. He probably learned invaluable lessons himself from an incident that will also help all of us who fly (even in the humblest form) in the future by providing something to think about, whether or not we\'ve ever flown a fast jet, let alone displayed one.

c) That this is an interesting, spectatcular incident with flight safety implications in which no-one was hurt, and which we can think and talk about without the risk of upsetting grieving relatives or being accused of ghoulishness.

d) That the incident demonstrated that the safety limits do save lives.

[LuckyBreak]

Does anyone have any idea if the jet is ok after that? He must have been pulling like a bastard using both arms, both legs and all his teeth! I know that the Typhoon will let you 'bend' it to avoid 'breaking' it, (ie. pull 1.25 times the G-limit in an emergency)

Glad the guy's ok. After his heart rate lowers (perhaps next year?) and the **** blows over, what an awesome bar story....

".....yeah, and then I recovered at 25ft at 400kts and 13g.....yup, planned it....."

Anyone remember when the Gnat was allowed down to 50ft?

[Tigs2]

Jackonicko
I'm loose chum dont worry. Like i said i needed to rant at those you have mentioned.
Tigs

[LowObservable]

Tigs,
I think we can agree that crashes are a bad thing.
I'd also put it to you as a working hypothesis that the reason that we don't crash 300 RAF aircraft a year, as in the early 1950s, and that we don't have weekly airline crashes (which we would if we multiplied 1950s-1960s accidents rates by today's traffic) is that we learn from the accidents that did happen and the accidents that didn't.
And I'd also suggest that when I say "we" I mean everyone. Pilots. Engineers. Air show organizers. Government regulators. (Pilots HATED GPWS when it came out and look what it did for us.) And even - for verily I say unto you, a broken clock is right twice a day - journos. No one group can do it by themselves.
That's why ranting about "if you aren't a jet pilot, then STFU" is IMHO counterproductive. Yes, it does have a certain intimidating power on the surface. But in the end its the old argumentum ad hominem fallacy. If I say it, and Jacko says it, and Chuck Yeager says it, are the first two statements invalid but the third correct?
That's not to say that we should not respect each others' knowledge and experience. But don't shut down the debate.

[Tigs2]

LO

That's not to say that we should not respect each others' knowledge and experience
I agree chap, thats why i said i would never tell anyone else of any other profession how to do their job.

I'd also put it to you as a working hypothesis that the reason that we don't crash 300 RAF aircraft a year, as in the early 1950s, and that we don't have weekly airline crashes (which we would if we multiplied 1950s-1960s accidents rates by today's traffic) is that we learn from the accidents that did happen and the accidents that didn't.

Sorry LO
there is very little evidence to support this (certainly on the flying side). The reason we do not crash as many aircraft is because our understanding of material science and our maintenance and servicing techniques have improved drastically. NDT and environmental health monitoring systems mean that these days the engineers can do a better job for us than ever in the history of aviation.

Didnt mean to stop the debate at all. Just get miffed off with people bad mouthing someone when they dont know what happened.(did prefix my message with i need a rant! - not an excuse granted)
Tigs

[Flap62]

Jackonicko,

Sorry chum but didn't criticise the pilot in my post. Simply stating that all the "ooo wasn't he skillful" blah is a bit misplaced. When you're in an aeroplane pointing at the ground you pull like a bugger. Very rarely any rational thoughts of "ok I'll pull for a bit longer then think about banging out" - that's why so many people fly servicable a/c into the ground. He may have porked it, it may have been the kit throwing a wobbly - I neither know nor care, I wasn't there and even if I did know I wouldn't point the finger but let's keep things in perspective eh!

[The Gorilla]

Some people on here really need to go out and get a life!!

So what eh? The pilot made a mistake whoopy doo. It's not the first time an airshow almost came to an end because of one. I was not 50 yards away from an E3D that opened and almost closed a recent Waddo airshow. Yep the pilot screwed up but yet his skill recovered the situation..

I was also unfortunate enough to be on a Herc in an orchard in Herefordshire due to a pilots mistake. 115 degrees angle of bank 250 feet nose dropped. Yes we were IN it not over it!! But again the Pilots skills got us out of it. Although I suspect that apple tree never recovered! Had a picture been taken that day it would have been almost identical to the typhoon one!

Flying is extremely dangerous, an occupational hazard you see, fact of life.

Give the guy a break he will be having nightmares and cold sweats for the rest of his life in payment.. Move on.

[Navaleye]

Top marks to the chap for getting away with it. What is the procedure in the RAF after such a close call? To the un-trained observer, it could argued that the aircraft and pilot were un-necessarily endangered. Presumably this will start some official machinery in motion. A BOI perhaps?

[Beeayeate]

Looking at it another way . . . the pilot recovered the kite under near extreme circumstances.

Now that a Typhie/pilot combination has survived this event, could it be that in 3 or so years time this "manoeuver" will become part of the Typhie's evasive tactics if needed in the "heat" of battle?


:rolleyes:

[Flap62]

Beeayeate,

My god you might be on to something. For years the boffins have been wondering what to tell the pilots to do when pointing at the ground and in one fell swoop you've solved it - pull back on the stick. You are a genius sir. Let us hope, that in years to come when countless aircraft have been saved by this revolutionary manoeuvre, you will get your reward.

[Pontius Navigator]

What time did this happen? I left as soon as the Reds arrived. They arrived on their display time only they landed instead.

Thought the Spitfire/Red flypast was good. When we tried to mix military and civil Spits in 1988 we were not allowed. Nice to see things changed there.

[BEagle]

PN - just before 1630 local on Friday.

[Beeayeate]

My god you might be on to something.

Flap
Mmm. . . you're right, on re-reading my post it does seem simplistic. :O

What I meant was that the Typhie's undoubted abilities plus the pilot's use of them produced a result that few (I think) other aircraft would get away with in that situation. Surely this is a good thing?

[Bigtop]

Tigs 2.

"The reason we do not crash as many aircraft is because our understanding of material science and our maintenance and servicing techniques have improved drastically. NDT and environmental health monitoring systems mean that these days the engineers can do a better job for us than ever in the history of aviation."

Really - you need to get out to DASC/AAIB and such places and find out why we crash our planes. Agreed we crash less today than we did in the 1940's and 50's but that is as much about safety awareness training as it is mechanical/engineering improvements.
80% of crashs are still attributable to the carbon base unit having a bad day - yep the human sat in the cockpit having a momentary lapse or whatever else you like to call it.

[ZH875]

The reason we do not crash as many aircraft is becausewe have fewer aircraft to crash and less flying hours to crash them in.

[Nige321]

More pics here:-

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=45487&page=2

Nige

[Selac66]

It seems to me that the system worked perfectly. Low level display base heights are there for this reason - same as fixed fuel reserves:- In the event that the normal sequence of events is disturbed, how much flex is required to still recover the situation? To be considered under the 'disturbance from the normal sequence of events' are such things as aircraft malfunctions, distractions and pilot handling errors.

If he was operating at a 100 foot base height than this proved adequate when balanced against the need for a flashy display of the aircraft.

[Conan the Librarian]

Those last pics explain a lot - it was heading directly towards Muggins. Chap next to me has video and is going to send same to me, but I may be able to short circuit that process, with a trip to Cirencester. We shall see tomorrow.

Good job I was wearing shorts - easier to hose out... I am delighted that ME is safe and that nobody was hurt. To be fair, this man has enormous cojones After all this he flew again on Friday just a few hours later and put in a great display. I take my hat off to you Matt.

Conan

[Busta]

I once read that "A superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill".
This predates pc, but I'm sure the sediment still stands. Never done display flying, just plenty of "beat ups" and the like; pulling like a b*stard or exit stage left always worked for me.

nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[Ali Barber]

Tigs2, I didn't intend the red card comment to be seen as any kind of punishment. I was merely explaining what I believed the procedures to be based on what I saw when I was on the circuit many moons ago, albeit with nothing like the performance available to the Typhoon! We were red carded ourselves, although nothing was bent and nobody was injured. We had a comprehensive debrief and eventually figured out what had gone wrong and took steps to ensure it wouldn't happen again.

I have no problems with him displaying the next day, but was a bit surprised that he displayed again the same day. Having said that he was allowed to display the same day. Having said that, I've seen guys who have scared themselves, been red carded and did a very "slack" show the next day - very understandably. There may be something to getting him back in the saddle as soon as possible, provided that was inadvertant, the lessons were learnt and he wasn't trying to do something "extra special" to get himself into that situation.

As for the seat comment, I accept that he was probably in parameters having seen that F-16 Thunderbirds cockpit video. But, as someone else commented, I wonder (out of idle curiosity) if he ever contemplated using it or was too busy tying to bend the stick and get that extra bit of turn rate!

[LuckyBreak]

Still waiting for some video footage...........

[boswell bear]

I'd go to more airshows if they could promise more flying like that :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Thanks Beags.

Another reason for flying again the same day is that it was still the practice day and far fewer crowds still around I guess as I was not the only one leaving as the Reds landed rather than displaying.

[Tigs2]

Ali Barber
thanks for the candid reply no offence meant or taken.

BigTop
Please dont get me started. I train people on AIB's. Been to DASC many many times.in the 1950, 60's 80% of accidents were caused by aircraft failure. We the carbon based items were always screwing up, but aircraft/technology/maintenance/servicing was the issue. We have done a lot to train our techies and cover their six with the technological advancements/quality sytems etc. We have done little, if anything to address the safety training issues. DRM is an established concept in commercial aviation and some military organisations, but the Brit military is still writing papers on how to implement it and when to implement it. We are 15 years behind some organisations.
80 % of accidents are, these days, caused by carbon based life forms - because of the swing in technology. The 80% figure can never be reduced. All we can do is try to reduce the numerical number of accidents each year. As technology and servicing techniques improve (and that is a science) then almost all accidents will be caused by CBLF's. Dont sit on a course watching some crash and smash vids going ooh, aagh, bu**er! and then come out with a statement that displays that you have no statistical understanding of the problem whatsoever.

[John Farley]

then almost all accidents will be caused by CBLF's

I nearly agree. I would just delete 'almost'. This is because God does not design, manufacture, maintain or operate aeroplanes - only your CBLFs do that. Therefore all accidents (in some way) can be traced back to people.

If anybody can come up with a case not covered by the above please take me to task on a new thread.

JF

[Tigs2]

JF
agreed. I guess i am looking at those incidents we would typically categorise as pilot/crew/techie/ATC error etc. Your logic cant be argued with.

[maccer82]

surely that cant be an AAC Apache in the background on one of the pictures?

[buoy15]

Wow!
You lot sound like anoraks, going on about performance, being lucky, just made it, skillful flying, recovered in time, just missed the ground, avoided a crash, saved a valuable aeroplane, flew later, got his laundry serviced, great photos, wish I'd been there, what was the ac number, blah blah!

From the photo evidence, the pilot clearly made an error of judgement causing the the ac to depart from the established display profile, putting himself, the ac and the public at risk!

This will be fundamental to the BOI

Check out the Nimrod crash at Toronto

I will be interested to see your comments later

[MightyGem]

surely that cant be an AAC Apache in the background on one of the pictures?
Why not??

[MightyGem]

Here's one that wasn't in the background...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nick.blacow/riat1407/apache.jpg

[Man-on-the-fence]

And its Dutch not AAC (oh and its Dutch AIR FORCE!! - not that I'm stirring you understand :D)

[Widger]

Wow, the power of Pprune. Page 2 in the Tory graph today!

[Pontius Navigator]

Buoy 15, agree about the Nimrod and also about the Victor 2. The Abingdon F4 also perhaps.

Typhoon? Well who knows?

[Jackonicko]

Which Victor 2 did you have in mind, old boy?

[safetypee]

I wonder how this incident may affect future displays.
First politically; there are likely to be (or should be) questions asked like what if 35 ft lower? (it is interesting how this value crops up in many display accidents). The fact is that in the current political climate Jo Public would not like paying for a military ‘error’ that parked one of their new jets at the side of the runway. What would £xxM pay for elsewhere; and ‘Tiffys’ do not catch terrorists. All of this has to be set against the backdrop of increasing public power, and the need for blame and retribution.

Secondly what can be learnt from the incident? I doubt that any findings will be made public, but I hope that whatever happened is passed on internally. I recall many years ago an excellent article (Air Clues?) on display flying; even for those who were not in this category there was something to heed about judgment and human error in precision flying. I expect that the pilot debriefed with flying display committee (a similar organization to that used at Farnborough) where explanations and advice would be exchanged for mutual benefit; at Farnborough the world tp community is close enough to talk and learn from each other, I hope the military can similarly benefit from any lessons learnt.

A speculative diversion; does the Typhoon’s control philosophy - control about the velocity vector as opposed the longitudinal axis, change the perception of display maneuvers? At high alpha there is a significant difference between where the aircraft is pointing and where it is going; when the VV is vertically down could there be a perception of well-being as the pitch attitude indicates less than 90? Whilst in principle this is true for all aircraft, would the Typhoon’s motion cues in having a different frame of reference give alternative or incorrect awareness of relative motion?

I hope that their ‘Airships’ do not overreact; most have a good track record in balancing the risks of display flying against the benefits. But these people too suffer political pressure, and the need for action is often predetermined. From my fast jet experience I knew several professional display pilots, two close friends, were killed. The majority of display accidents involve human error and extreme vertical maneuvers. Is there now good justification in restricting low level vertical maneuvers, particularly those not directly applicable the current role of the aircraft? Is it sensible to expose a new aircraft type to the increased risks of display flying; albeit small risks, but all with minimum margin for human error? Fortunately I do not have to make these calls, but during my career the advice I attribute to Hugh Meriwether (Hawker tp) aided my judgment – “speed and upwardness”.

Edit: My apologies to Duncan and Hugh, following JF’s comment; and not forgetting the many examples of professional of display flying from Bill, David, John (JF), et al. A bit before my time, but I watched from the grass at F’Boro.

[ShyTorque]

Has a Board of Inquiry been called for? If so, we should desist from speculation.

The other examples quoted WERE investigated as they resulted in aircraft accidents. Thankfully, this one didn't. Common sense says that it could be dealt with by careful debriefing.

Or are there really some sad souls out there who would like to see disciplinary action to be taken? :suspect:

[John Farley]

Safetypee

Duncan Meriwether (Hawker tp)

I am sure both Duncan Simpson and Hugh Merewether are happy to have helped you.

JF

[southside]

The pilot of a Eurofighter Typhoon jet narrowly avoided crashing his aircraft during rehearsals for an air show at the weekend.



A Ministry Defence spokesman said the pilot of the RAF's most expensive plane had "got too close to the ground".

Witnesses reported that the pilot "slammed on his burners" to prevent the aircraft hitting the ground on Friday during a practice for the show at RAF Fairford, Glos.

Jeremy Flack, an aircraft enthusiast, said: "It just didn't look right to me. He was getting closer to the ground and everyone gasped.

''Many of us got pictures of it happening. A still photo does not do it justice because it looks like it is just taking off. But there's no landing gear down and you can see the heat below the plane from the burners as the pilot desperately tries to save himself from smashing into the ground."

Asked about a report that the plane had been a "split second from disaster", the MoD spokesman said: "I don't know about that. The pilot was in control of his aircraft. He got too close to the ground. He corrected the mistake."

The spokesman said the pilot was one of the most experienced of those flying the Eurofighter.

He could not say whether the pilot had been reprimanded.

He said: "It is an internal matter between the pilot, his ground crew and his commanding officers to establish what went wrong."

[Lafyar Cokov]

Sorry if this has already been stated but everyone on this thread is going on and on about 'what if s' and '35ft lower' etc etc. The minimum limits for displaying (100' agl) have a built in safety margin for error. Obviously the aim is not to bust these limits but it happens. Can anyone who flies military ac at low level honestly say they have never had the rad-alt warner go off?? If you have then you too have bust a limit. But thats why the limits are there to allow for a margin of error - otherwise the published limits would be 0ft!! Cut the guy some slack - he (may or may not have) made an error that put the ac close to the ground - at the speed he was descending it may only have been a fraction of an inch of stick pull - but most importantly (especially for him and his family) he didn't pile in. End of story.

[NigelOnDraft]

There are a few references above to "busting his MSD of 100'agl". Now in my day doing low level aeros in the RAF, in something as mundane as a JP (but applied to all jets at least), the 100' MSD only applied to "flypasts"... in turn effectively the intial run in to the display, and/or a flypast descending from essentially level flight.

For aerobatic manoeuvres, the MSD was 500' i.e. where judgement / luck / skill was used to make a "hard(ish) pull" to level flight.

Can anyone confirm that is is still the case? I cannot believe that FJs are now displaying to 100' MSD from genuine aerobatic manoeuvres?

The above is not related to the RIAT incident. However, if the above is confirmed, then it seems the RIAT incident maybe did not make 100' into 25', but 500' ?

[Man-on-the-fence]

Do you call being announced over the tannoy at RIAT as being in the public domain?

[Boogeyboard]

Wearing a bit thin now.

Talk of replacement/substitute jets after the event is nonsense. The same pilot in same jet flew again (outstandingly) just hours later - that's four flights one the same day and two more on subsequent days -says a lot about platform reliability - any F3s/F-16s capable of that?

Every stakeholder from flyers to spectators would wish to avoid similar situations ever occuring again. However it is likely that they will at some time in the future because sh1t happens.

At the end of the day, as a tax payer it is comforting to know that, in Typhoon, the RAF has a jet with the systems, agility and power to deal with such a scenario - and pilots with the balls to ride it through.

bb
:ok:

[PPRuNe Radar]

If it was the 2005 season display pilot featured on the RAF part of the MoD website, then it's Sqn Ldr Matt Elliot. He's also the OC Standards for 29 Squadron.

RAF Typhoon Display Pilot (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/news_0505_04.html)

[Jackonicko]

Most of us know exactly who the pilot was. Anyone listening to the commentary at Fairford knows. Anyone interested can find out easily by Googling 'Typhoon display pilot 2005'.

It is, in other words, far into the public domain already.

From the RAF's OWN website:

The first RAF Typhoon air display.

by Tim Callaway, pictures by Keith Draycott.

The first public air display by an RAF Squadron Typhoon took place at the 2005 Southend Air Show. Making history in the new front line fighter was Squadron Leader Matt E****** of No 29 Squadron, the Typhoon Operational Conversion Unit (OCU).

Matt E****** began operational flying in the RAF on the Tornado F3. After two tours on the type, he became a Weapons Instructor on No 43 Squadron. His next posting was to the Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit, No 17 Squadron, where he experienced two years of testing and evaluating the Typhoon. Matt was then promoted and posted to No 29 Squadron, the Typhoon OCU, where he is now Officer Commanding Standards.

As OC Standards, Matt will be responsible for the standardisation of the pilot training for the whole of the Typhoon Force. As this is currently a nucleus force, Matt is working alongside the OCU to get the training syllabus up and running. Once the first front-line Squadron passes through the OCU, Matt will go with them to assist with their combat-ready work-up. In effect, No 29 Squadron are writing the book on the Typhoon, and Matt will be responsible for implementing it across the force. At the moment, the OCU are in the writing stage, preparing and evaluating the syllabus for the students, while their counterparts, No 17 Squadron, the Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit, are doing similar work to ensure the aircraft is ready to fulfil the task.

In the midst of this tremendous responsibility, Matt has also taken on the role of Typhoon display pilot for 2005. Matt is very enthusiastic about this, and explained after his first display at Southend; "Well, that's one down and fifteen venues, or about twenty displays to go! It's been really good fun and a big eye-opener so far, this is the first time I have displayed an aeroplane, let alone the Typhoon! So it has been a steep learning curve not just for me, but for the whole Team."

"The Typhoon is a quantum leap in performance over the Tornado. Typhoon is a lighter aeroplane with much more thrust than any other type I have flown, and the manoeuvrability is simply awesome. It is not only a delight to fly as a result, but much easier as the flight control system does it all for you. I can pull the stick all the way back into my stomach, put the throttles all the way forward and the aircraft will fly the manoeuvre for me. In other types, you have to worry about such things as limiting speeds, flap settings, permissible manoeuvres and where you put your wings. In the Typhoon, it is all straightforward and simple instead, and literally at your fingertips."

"It is a very comfortable aircraft to fly as well, because of the sheer performance. You can always get out of whatever you have got into! Most of the display is flown between 4 to 5G, but towards the end I have a high-speed pass with a pull-up, which is about 8.5G. The kit we are wearing at the moment is fantastic at protecting you against those forces, so I don't even have to strain against the G, the kit does the work and I can relax and concentrate on flying the aircraft, which is great."

"I am thoroughly enjoying myself at the moment, but as a relative new boy to display flying, I realise I still have a lot to more learn. If I am honest, being the first is pretty daunting, but I must admit it is great fun."

Matt's display in the Typhoon really does show off the power and the manoeuvrability of the type. He was given a clean sheet by the RAF to design his display, and spent a great deal of time researching it. "John Turner, the former chief test pilot and display pilot on the programme, and Craig Penrice, a BAE SYSTEM test pilot who also displayed the Typhoon have both given me a lot of background, which is great. I also am very lucky in having Flt Lt Anthony Parkinson working with me as my display manager. Tony has been the Tornado F3 display pilot, and has flown with the Red Arrows for four years, so has a mass of display experience. Between us, we designed the display together."

"You must remember that with Typhoon, I am just the sharp end of a very large team. Because this is a very new aeroplane, with a lot of new in-service techniques and equipment required to support it, the engineering backup required is immense, and has been supreme. We have a team of at least ten engineers every time we go away to make sure we are safe to operate. Behind them we have the whole Squadron supporting us. There are guys back our home base at Coningsby making sure the data is up to date, as well as guys still based at Warton making sure the Engineering Support System is up and running. There is a very big team behind us, not just the ten of us out at the air show. This really is an in-service aeroplane out here for the first time."

Supporting the Typhoon Team on their first outing to a public display was Wing Commander Al Mackay, the OC of No 29 Squadron. Al has been involved in the Typhoon programme for some six years now, and is very well placed to understand the project, the risks and the needs of the aircraft as a result. He expanded on Matt's comments about the task of No 29 Squadron by adding; "Our role is to train the rest of the Typhoon Force, right now by learning all we can about the aircraft and its requirements and to develop such an understanding that we can then impart that knowledge on to every Typhoon pilot in the RAF."

"On a personal note, I am really pleased that No 29 Squadron is the unit allotted to this task, as I was a member of the Squadron when it was flying the Tornado F3, so it is nice to come back, particularly as boss!"

"However, this is a massive task, hugely important, because if we don't do our job properly, the Typhoon programme, so far as the RAF is concerned, will stall. In terms of the Team that I have around me, everyone has been hand picked to do the job they are doing. Whether it be pilots who have an F-16 or F-18 background, Weapons Instructors from the Air Defence Force, or the Engineering team, everyone was carefully selected for this task. There is tremendous expertise here, and as I try to tell everyone on the Squadron, if we can't do it, nobody can."

"The aircraft itself is really helping in this. Yes, it is being developed in service, and there is a great deal of work left to do as such elements as the Multi-Function Information Distribution System (MIDS), Sensor Fusion and Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS) are now being introduced. All this work is still going on, and there will be many software drops and upgrades to the aircraft before it is fully operational, but the aircraft we have right now is already outstanding. In terms of the radar, the avionics package and the airframe itself, in terms of performance, it is second to none and we are delighted with it. It is this confidence and performance that we are demonstrating in the flying display."

Squadron Leader Steph Simpson, the Senior Engineering Officer of No 29 Squadron, echoed both Matt and Al when she said; "I have been involved with the Typhoon in an engineering and planning role for several years, I was part of the Abbeywood Project Team, but since arriving on No 29 Squadron, I must say I feel I now have the best job in the Royal Air Force for an engineer. This is a real challenge!"

Several members of Steph's engineering support team for the display aircraft wholeheartedly agreed. The Typhoon is seen as the cutting edge of technology, and managing the introduction of this technology into Squadron service with the RAF is rightly a matter of great pride to everyone involved in it.

Having flown what many expert spectators considered to be an incredible display in the Typhoon, Matt E****** summed up the latest RAF fighter by saying; "The Typhoon is so thoroughly exhilarating and such a quantum leap ahead of anything else, that anybody who is out there, and is a self-respecting fighter pilot, should get himself onto this jet!"



The same pilot is also identified by name on a number of other websites, including Valley's and the Government News Network, and in the RAF News, etc.

[Safeware]

As regards all the talk of b*llockings, reprimands and one way chat's with the AOC, IMHO there is probably no stiffer reprimand than the one Matt gave himself.

Everything else is about learning lessons, not punishment.

s/w

[Widger]

Crikey!


he looks a bit young to be flying something that big!!!




:uhoh: :\ :ugh: :bored: :hmm: :E :E :E :E :E

[212man]

Quote from ME:

" I can pull the stick all the way back into my stomach, put the throttles all the way forward and the aircraft will fly the manoeuvre for me."

Evidently!!:ok:

[safetypee]

LC re busting limits: If the authorizers view a limit as a rule that is never broken (which I hope they don’t) then busting a limit is a blameworthy transgression; unfortunately this is often the public view.
Alternatively if the limits are interpreted as personal protection (crew and authorizers) and should be used for guidance, an acceptance that errors occur and thus the limits in part quantifies the likely error, then this is a much more professional approach (risk management). Busting a limit in this sense does not warrant any blame, it is the understanding and correction of the error that are important.

Busting the limits per se should not require a BoE, but often it is the circumstances and nature of the bust which leads to such over reaction. It is not the open discussion, emotive or otherwise, which benefits other crews that determines the action required.
In this instance the incident was very public and a close call; I do not believe that this alone warrants a BoE, but like any incident it should be investigated. If a personal debrief (investigation) is sufficient then the matter is closed, but please share what has been learnt (within the military).

The authorizers may have something to learn from the incident, did they overlook a small difference in aircraft behavior or make false assumption about it’s capability against previous ones?

NoD raises a valid point about display minima. I do not know what the RIAT limits were, but a similar responsible airshows, the fast jet minima was 250/300ft for horizontal maneuvers and 500ft for vertical. Many pilots and authorizes assume that such minima can be applied equally to all fast jet types; this is no necessarily true and this is where the professional display pilot knowing both his personal limits and those of the aircraft will make the necessary adjustments.
--------------------
Airspeed and Upwardness

[Speedpig]

he looks a bit young to be flying something that big!!!

...more surprising is that it is "that big" looks quite small until you see people next to it... or are the people all stunted from 8.5G manouevres?

[Zoom]

Another most apposite quote from ME:
'You can always get out of whatever you have got into!'

However he got into it, he can thank his lucky stars that he didn't have a pair of military Speys behind him with their 3 second burner light up time...........!!!

[FJJP]

Is it not time to end the speculation and put this one to bed?

It's getting to the stage that some are scratching around for things to say. Are we not making a teeny-weensy mountain out of a molehill? It happened; he had a close call; he got away with it; he lived to tell another tale; he pro'ly got a grilling from the flying display committee; he pro'ly phoned his boss to tell him what happened; there won't be a board of inquiry [why should there be?]; he goes on flying the Typhoo display.

Any more to be said - or does that summarise it all?

[Pontius Navigator]

Jackinoko, 543 Victor 2 Wyton in front of the press no less. Pulled too tight just like a Vulcan only thing was the Victor was not as stiff.

[TimL]

Pontius

543 Victor 2 Wyton in front of the press no less.
That was June 1966, so you've got a long memory. I was there, as I was on 543 at the time. Not only was he pulling too hard, but he was doing a lot of knots over the limiting IAS.

I also happened to be at Fairford last Friday and saw the Typhoon incident. (Maybe I should stay away from air displays!) The most impressive thing to me was the rate at which the aeroplane was descending despite the nose being about 15° above the horizon. There was a dead silence after his close shave, then someone said "I don't think he meant to do that". Something of an understatement!

[AlanM]

Well said FJJP

After 7 pages of largely drivvel some sensible statements.

(PS. I have a pic of him taxiing in on Sunday with a different name on the side of the aircraft (A Sqn Ldr))

Is that common??

P.S. He looks Very young....! :)

[Man-on-the-fence]

With the help of fellow PPRuNer Duxford Eagles I have put together a small GIF of my photographs of the pass.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nick.blacow/riatxtra/Typhoon_50.gif


All I have done to each image is reduce the size and brighten them a bit.

Its about 800k in size

[Wholigan]

Holy Smoke! Great sequence MOTF.

[Tarnished]

Thanks for the montage Nick, I was writing this as you posted.





All right you lot, anyone here done a display in Typhoon??

No? Well pin your ears back because I have.

I have no intention of commenting on what may have led up to the subject incident, I will give you some facts about Typhoon flight controls and flight characteristics as there has been some speculation and questions raised in these regards.

Typhoon has Carefree Handling (CFH), which means that the pilot need not worry about exceeding any structural or aerodynamic limit no matter what he does with the controls (stick, throttles or rudder), no matter what the prevailing flight conditions are or what fuel state or weapons load the aircraft has. However, it does not mean that the pilot can ignore the basic laws of physics and aerodynamics.

The basic airframe configuration is also aerodynamically unstable in pitch, which helps to explain BOAC’s observation that there was “not much alpha on the foreplane”. The control surfaces move to artificially stabilize the aircraft. In a stable aircraft the control surfaces deflect to make the aircraft pitch. In an unstable aircraft the control surfaces are ‘stopping’ the aircraft from pitching. If you look at pictures of the jet in a hard turn, the foreplane is actually leading edge down (ie going against the turn). The flight controls are constantly on the move to keep the apple cart balanced.

The stick does feature an override or detent, but this only produces an effect when the aircraft is in a g-limiting condition (higher speeds) where a percentage of extra g is then allowed. This was the subject of a lot of discussion and heart ache throughout the design life. Some folk insisted on it being there (despite the high fatigue penalty of its inadvertent use) to cater for the high speed dive into the ground (or mid-air collision avoidance) where 9g wasn’t going to hack it, the extra % might just make all the difference. However, this was in the days before GPWS was part of the baseline design. In actual fact the window where 9g would kill you and 9+x%g would save you is very small indeed, but that’s irrelevant to this story because it is highly likely that the aircraft was a speeds where it would be alpha limited not g limited.

The biggest factor that nobody has picked up on is the ability of the aircraft to increase its energy state in a heartbeat. Unload for 3 secs and you add 100kts or so, the faster you are the faster you get faster, with the burners in at low level you can find yourself accelerating despite being at 9g. Not something the current fast jet force are used to!

That should be enough to keep you going and set a few facts straight.

Regards

Tarnished

[Speedpig]

pin your ears back because I have.

Thank God for someone who is actually qualified to comment.
Thanks Tarnished.

[Controversial Tim]

The biggest factor that nobody has picked up on is the ability of the aircraft to increase its energy state in a heartbeat. Unload for 3 secs and you add 100kts or so, the faster you are the faster you get faster, with the burners in at low level you can find yourself accelerating despite being at 9g. Not something the current fast jet force are used to! But should be something the current Typhoon display pilot is used to.

Glad he's here to hear us talk about the almost incident.

[Pontius Navigator]

TimL, yes indeed. Cant' remember the pilot's name as I was in 1 Gp not 3 Gp.

[TimL]

Pontius

Best not to speak ill of the dead - I'll PM you with the pilot's name.

[Green Flash]

OK.

I was there. Saw it. Started running to begin the Crash Ob. Learnt two things about Typhoons on Friday afternoon. It can get you into trouble. It can get you out.

New SOP for Typh air combat; get 'em down low and see who buys the farm first. I know where I would put my money. It is very possible that the only aircraft that could have got you out of that situaton was the only one in the sky over Fairford.

Mr E, I salute you. :ok:

[The Rocket]

Controversial Tim,

Who said that the current display pilot is here to listen to us talking? You are quoting Tarnished, who said he HAS displayed Typhoon, not that he is the current display pilot.

Yes, the fact that it accelerates VERY quickly even with the stick loaded will be something that the current Typhoon display pilot is completely used to. However you and I don't know the hard facts, merely the speculation, and the very fact that you insinuate that he was caught unawares by his aircraft accelerating, during a display he wil have practised countless times, is an insult.

[jindabyne]

FJJP

That pretty much sums it up. I had a private beer with Matt ( whom I'd never met before) after he'd re-qualified on Friday evening. He clearly had the support of all those about him - groundcrew, squadron pilots, other team members, and the hierarchy. Pretty hard situation for the man, but he then went on to do his stuff superbly on Sat & Sun, under the spotlight of all the professionals who 'knew' what had happened. Gutsy.

But from an entirely dispassionte view, and with a distant display-ish background, I'm somewhat amazed that the red card wasn't shown for the Saturday & Sunday. I recall the F-18 guy that did a similar thing over Farnborough town in 96 (?), and was blackballed for the rest of the week. From a regularity view, strange.

As for bollockings, BoI etc, leave it!

[PPRuNe Radar]

I recall the F-18 guy that did a similar thing over Farnborough town in 96 (?), and was blackballed for the rest of the week. From a regularity view, strange.

Very very true. There have been many transgretions and bannings over the years.

Maybe they figured the jet we have all paid for over the years (wayyyyyy over budget as is usual for British Waste of Space) should start to earn its keep at last ??

From a pilot point of view, the guy did fantastic to recover from the situation. He saved an expensive jet ... and more imortantly ... his butt. But from a standards point of view (of which he is RAF expert), why did it get to that stage before he tried to recover ??

Hopefully he will feed the answers to Typhoon pilots and we won't see them spoil UK airshows with any needless crashes.

[Maude Charlee]

Is there anything other than a needless crash? :confused:

[southside]

No matter what you say about the aircraft and its abilities.....at the end of the day it wasn't the aircraft that broke the limits, it wasn't the aircraft which disobeyed the rules and it won't be the aircraft that stands in front of a Courts martial.

[BOAC]

which helps to explain BOAC’s observation that there was “not much alpha on the foreplane - Tarnished - thank you for probably the most appropriate post on the thread so far - and for explaining modern flight stability to an old git!
I fully expected the foreplane to be hard 'nose up' with ME's feet up on the dash:D Must be an interesting aircraft if the stability system fails?

[6Z3]

"Hopefully he will feed the answers to Typhoon pilots and we won't see them spoil UK airshows with any needless crashes."

I always thought the purpose of a BOI was neither to apportion blame, nor to punish individuals, but to determine the facts that may have a bearing on an incident/accident; and then to make recommendations to Command in order to help prevent recurrence. Asking the pilot what happened should glean most of the answers, and Command is fortunate that we are able to do that on this occasion. When the next guy/gal reaches the same link in the chain, but reacts slightly differently and ploughs in, the subsequent BOI may not have the luxury of a one-to-one interview.

So, in that context, I believe those who put 'BOI', 'Bollockings' and 'leave it', in the same sentence should think again.

[southside]

I always thought the purpose of a BOI was neither to apportion blame, nor to punish individuals, but to determine the facts



No, No, No..... the purpose of a BOI is to form a witch hunt, track the guilty B' Arstard down and to hang him(her) out to dry.

[6Z3]

Well, if the guilty b'sted was actually an undetected software glitch, then the next time it bites could be all the more spectacular.

[jindabyne]

6Z3

When you have fully grasped the reasons for the convening of BoI per se, re-considered the circumstances of this 'incident' and come to understand the well-established investigative processes that follow, then you just might begin to fathom the intent behind my admittedly frivolous final comment.

[FB11]

Apart from a few interesting snippets about the Typhoon FCS, PLEASE someone confine the other 8 pages of pointless/myopic/ill informed speculation to the Pprune archives. (Maybe a new thread 'Typhoon FCS' that contains fact not fiction?)

1. The pilot, for reasons known to him and those who debriefed him, made an error.
2. He was rebriefed and clearly identified the issues because... The aircraft flew again. He did 2 good shows on Sat/Sun.
3. That's it.
4. Next subject.

[John Farley]

FB11

The only trouble with an excellent post like that is it tends to identify who you are!!

Regards

John

[Pilgrim101]

Would never have happened in a Harrier Mr Farley, Sir ! ;)

I wonder if we learn from the mistakes of others or just enjoy the schadenfreude from certain sectors. When I make mistakes in my aeroplane, nobody ever sees them quite so publicly and I certainly don't tell anyone about them. Save a little prick (!) of conscience when I nearly do the same thing again. But then again I fly for fun and that's not allowed at the controls of a Typhoon is it ?

[buoy15]

6Z3 and Southside

The BOI does apportion blame

However, it may not fit

The Nimrod Toronto Crash BOI was re-convened 3 times to "get the wording right" so the MOD could avoid being sued for the accident

[Pilot Pacifier]

Although I was there in the FRIAT stand and watched the whole sequence of events with my chin on the floor, surely someone must have a video of it?

Respect to Matt for climbing back in and for the subsequent excellent displays...

[Man-on-the-fence]

I have just edited my last post so that you cab see the gif in the post instead of downloading it.

[Safeware]

Looking at MOTF's (excellent) sequence of stills, would the shots with the BAE Systems banner behind the aircraft be considered 'good advertising'?
:ooh: :ooh:

sw

[Boogeyboard]

Safeware;

'...would the shots with the BAE Systems banner behind the aircraft be considered 'good advertising'?....


One would think so given that they and their European friends have produced an aircraft that was probably the only one of its type at the Show (or anywhere else for that matter) capable of providing the flight control reaction/engine response and powerful thrust needed to get out of such a tight spot. Credit where credit is due I think.

On a slightly lighter note - Have you noticed in the air trade rags that the Eurofighter advertisements all carry the strap line - 'Nothing comes close'. If the ad agency boys were at IAT on the day they would have been snorting into their G&T's.

bb

[Greek God]

There has also been no mention of the FPV (Flight Path Vector) which is a real time dynamic presentation of the aircrafts flight path in the HUD and or HDD. The F16 is limited to 25alpha and no amount of extra pull will increase that so at max alpha FPV in the runway = ground kill therefore time to leave al la the T-Bird accident (Who I believe had an incorrect altimeter setting and went through his gate too low) The Tyhoon is a completely different kettle of fish and while the pilot may have exceeded his minimum height I would be reasonably sure he knew he had the required performance margin to not do a T-Bird. Air display flying by its nature has an inherant risk but only ME & his team will know how close he came - as also mentioned the Tyhoon is a quantam leap ahead of anything the RAF has had to date, many will not appreciate this if trying to compare it to "normal a/c" If indeed he did request to climb to 5000ft and repeat the manoeuvre to me that is a mark of the professional - Miscalculation, misjudgement, distraction whatever, he learnt and improved Good Job I say.

[LuckyBreak]

Anyone wanting a video of the 'Close Call', I have just received one this morning on email from an undisclosed person on 29sqn, I'm sure that there will be one doing the rounds soon!

[CBA_caption]

Top choice of soundtrack, if I heard it correctly!

Glad the driver is OK.

CBA

[petitfromage]

Heres 2 quick links to the video:

1. (With sound) http://www.sukhoi.fsnet.co.uk/APG/RIAT.mpg

2. (Smaller file, no sound) http://homepage.mac.com/pgre/iMovieTheater2.html

[Navaleye]

The back of that bird was no more than 25ft above the deck. 1 second later would have been too late. It doesn't get much closer than that. I hate to have to clean that flying suit. Close one Mark :mad:

[BOAC]

CV: NO Typhoon experience, some 'classic' jet low-level aeros experience and a few 'exciting' moments.

Having seen the videos, it appears that:-

1) The base height was 'broken'
2) It did not crash
3) It was 'under control' during the manoeuvre

More than that one cannot say. I suspect the alarmists on here have run away with the event. It is fairly safe to say something went wrong, either pilot or aircraft induced, and the pilot used some of the height margin in recovering. That is what it is for. Low-level aeros are inherently dangerous and can go wrong. Talk of 'BOI' and 'grounding' are over-done. It is apparent the Display Committee was satisfied. I join FJJP and FB11 in calling for an end to 'speculation'. Case closed, good display, great aircraft by all accounts.

PS Can I have a go?:D:D

[Safeware]

Agree with CBA, but what is the soundtrack?

sw

[Nige321]

Sorry, but I can' quite see what all the fuss is about - It looks under full control all the way through. Looks like he allowed the aircraft to bottom out and build speed to me - If the velocity vector is displayed on the HUD, then he would know he wasn't going to dig a hole...:uhoh:

Nige

[Self Loading Freight]

Thought he was using QFE but was given QNH - so was actually manoeuvering at a safe height above a subterranean sea...

a-ha!

R

[StopStart]

Soundtrack to the vid is, I believe, "Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad?" by Moby from the album "Play".

:p

Notwithstanding the 9 pages of "discussion" by various "experts" (admitedly with 1 or 2 actual experts ;) ) I was wondering about the display auth aspect of all this. Are we seeing a case of commercial pressures overriding procedures here? We have seen cases in the past of guys porking their practice and being red carded for the actual show so what's the deal here? Fair play to the bloke and all that for reflying it again that afternoon but is that a chance that would be afforded others in such a situation? Is this just too high a profile product to allow the display to be canned?

I know it's RIAT and all that but is there an element of double standards here?

[Safeware]

StopStart - thanks for the info.

Re standards - I like to think of this as rational thinking rather than knee-jerking.

If the issue was one of 'showing off' then a red card is justified. But if the guy fronted up and said 'Yep, cocked up, scared me sh*tless, here's what happened, here's why it won't happen again' then why not let him continue?

The RAF are still learning about the jet, but they aren't gifted amateurs at flying. Learn - move on.

sw

[safetypee]

If, IF the control override feature was a contribution to this save, then the engineers, Tarnished, and other tps should take this event as the recognition and validation of their judgment and fortitude; it is an example for all who work in design / flight test, and the bean counters who think that they make the decisions (but never appear at the BOI). Well done the design and test team.
--------------------
Airspeed and Upwardness

[Pontius Navigator]

Navaleye, nothing to do with RIAT but the 25 fps claim.

A handy remembrance aid is that 360k is the same at 202 yards or 606 feet (approx per second).

60mph is 88 fps.

25 feet in any direction is going to be a pretty short period.

[L Peacock]

Safetypee

The one post I found informative (hardly surprising given his call sign) and measured was by Tarnished. There again, I read it properly. He pointed out that the override facility comes into play at g limited conditions. I suspect at these speeds the aircraft would be alpha limited.

Won't post any more to this thread. It's run its course and I, like many others, have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Would love to hear the story from the horse's mouth though.
Maybe in years to come we'll read "I learned about display flying from that"

[Jackonicko]

Stoppers,

Were commercial pressures brought to bear to avoid a cancellation of the Typhoon display?

I don't know.

If there were such pressures, where did they come from?

I'd guess from RIAT itself (Typhoon is a draw) rather than from the manufacturer.

Just a thought. And here's another:

Even if the normal reaction would have been an automatic red card, shouldn't we be applauding an outbreak of common sense and flexibility, if we agree that the bloke had learned from his mistake and wasn't going to repeat it? Red carding someone simply because "that's what always happens" is no better for flight safety, surely?

J

[Just This Once...]

The pilot was flying the display using QFE (atmospheric pressure at ground level) or so he thought - but was actually given QNH (pressure at sea level) by ATC - a difference in the order of 200 feet, hence the closeness to the ground. Apparently, he was intending to eject but was unable initially as the stick was being pulled too far back. Once again, no one person entirely to blame - a combination of errors not picked up.

I started this thread after coming home with a lump in my throat. There has been some useful comment on the forum, but now that it is ‘off and running’ and with quotes like that above perhaps it has run its course.

Although I have never done a display, I am interested as the next man as to what went wrong – we all want to learn. However, I am prepared to wait; I suggest others consider doing the same.

[Gingerbread Man]

To whoever said "I don't know if it's possible to eject at that rate of descent", I refer you to the rather embarassing accident at Mountain Home AFB in September 2003. This involved an F-16 from the Thunderbirds doing a similar manoeuvre but not getting away with it and creating $21 million worth of wreckage. The pilot committed his egress micro-seconds before impact and got away with it. I know he wasn't using Martin Baker furniture removal equipment, but I imagine the EFA has a similarly performing seat. Good show to the chappy involved :) .

Ginge :cool:

[FJJP]

For heaven's sake - stop any talk of QFE/QNH. Never in a million years will a display pilot NOT check that his altimeter reads ZERO at the end of the runway.

Now can we just drop the subject - the incident is finished. There is nothing to be gained by any more speculation.

[PPRuNe Pop]

I think maybe JR is right. It is time to end this particular thread simply because there is really no more to be said that hasn't already been said.

However, feel free to start another perhaps using the post by Tarnished and keep speculation from it.

All I can think to say is that the design team seem to have thought of everything - and I mean everything. Thanks also be to the tp's who must have had some hairy rides proving the theory.