Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow [Archive]

glad rag

22nd Aug 2015, 16:04

Poor sods on the A27 just going about their own business.

I HATE airshows, I've lost so many friends/aquaintances in them . . .

RIP all concerned and real consideration for all the Emergency Services involved in the aftermath.

As for getting knickers in a twist over the pilot, I'm far more concerned with those who were involved and not volunteers. They are the real victims, poor souls.

Thank you Brian for that voice of sanity.

7 killed so far... I cannot easily convay my anger at this needless loss of life- FOR WHAT?

I hope the injured and bereaved fully appreciate the defensive arguments from those in favour of stunt flying geriatric military fast jets that are due to follow...

http://thumbsnap.com/s/6Su8J1hr.jpg?0822

RIP to those out for a drive on a sunny Saturday afternoon...

TOWTEAMBASE

22nd Aug 2015, 16:21

How was that photo taken ? Those poor people just to the right of the picture. Look like workmen in orange vests ? Time to call it a day I reckon, too many recently.

TOWTEAMBASE

22nd Aug 2015, 16:33

Is that another loss for North Weald ?????

Mrmungus

22nd Aug 2015, 16:36

How was that photo taken ? Those poor people just to the right of the picture. Look like workmen in orange vests ? Time to call it a day I reckon, too many recently.

I would guess they were the marshals directing the traffic to the show.

Looking at the Video It seems to deviate 90 degrees off track from the start of the pull up. Is this not a messed up Roll off the top rather than a loop that missed the gate height.

I agree, too many punchy displays.

Start and end high then fly down. it looks the same to the audience.

RIP everyone.

Lima Juliet

22nd Aug 2015, 16:50

Yes, sadly this echos Abingdon 88 and Bratislava 99 to me - missed gate heights are a killer as are loaded rolls as you go over the top. We nearly had one with the Typhoon at RIAT in 05 as well that missed the ground by 10s of feet...:eek:

Thoughts are with the Bona Mate that I've been told was flying...:(

Link to video for those that want draw their own conclusions to this tragic event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8

good finish

22nd Aug 2015, 16:50

Every injury and death is a tragedy and my condolences to the families.
However, to those calling for displays to be cancelled are you going to stop driving your cars? because lots of innocent people are killed and injured by cars by people making journeys in them for pleasure.

Two's in

22nd Aug 2015, 16:55

PPRuNe: Professional Pilots Rumour Network

"Think before you post" is NOT a condition of the Internet, in fact, the very opposite is true.

Onceapilot

22nd Aug 2015, 16:55

Sad,:sad:
It was not "a loop".

OAP

Lima Juliet

22nd Aug 2015, 17:05

Re: Loop

Looks like a 1/4 clover to me?

RAFEngO74to09

22nd Aug 2015, 17:12

Very sad.

More close up pictures here - level just above the trees but must have still had a high sink rate.

Warning: disturbing close ups of some of the vehicles involved.

Shoreham Airshow plane crash as Hawker Hunter hits A27 as the pilot survives fireball | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207016/Pilot-pulled-burning-wreckage-plane-crashes-Shoreham-Airshow.html)

TOWTEAMBASE

22nd Aug 2015, 17:15

Good finish, how can you compare this to a car accident. It's just too common an occurrence now with old aircraft at airshows. Car accidents will always happen because cars will always exist, grounding these ac will eliminate them killing their pilots and others on the ground. Surely they can't fly forever. Thoughts are with everyone involved

McDuff

22nd Aug 2015, 17:15

"Yes, sadly this echos Abingdon 88 and Bratislava 99 to me - missed gate heights are a killer as are loaded rolls as you go over the top. We nearly had one with the Typhoon at RIAT in 05 as well that missed the ground by 10s of feet..."

The pilot who died in 99 at Bratislava was a friend of mine. I never saw the report from the inquiry, but I understood from a fellow BAe pilot that Graham might have mistaken his line and taken too long to adjust on the way down from a looping manoeuvre. I didn't think that he had missed a gate, as such.

But I'd be grateful for a pointer to any report that anyone might have.

As for the Typhoon at RIAT, I watched that from the walk back to the car park; I've never seen anyone go as low as that and climb away again.

McD

spargazer

22nd Aug 2015, 17:15

woodford 91, G-ALGT

The Old Fat One

22nd Aug 2015, 17:27

....your wild theories and demanding display flying should be banned, i would suggest you allow an inquiry to be held.

I think you can safely assume that there will be more than one...police, HSE, coroners office, CAA and a ton of representing QCs. A giant spotlight is going to be shone brightly into the world of displaying old aircraft and it is going to play out in the full glare of the media.

People died and it's 2015, not 1952.

RAFEngO74to09

22nd Aug 2015, 17:28

LJ,

Typhoon at RIAT 2005 - I was there - could not have been closer - spectator expletives at 00:58:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQbBxc7ixYM

Arcanum

22nd Aug 2015, 17:31

However, to those calling for displays to be cancelled are you going to stop driving your cars? because lots of innocent people are killed and injured by cars by people making journeys in them for pleasure.

Most of life in the western world is about minimising and balancing risk. By way of examples, a 70MPH motorway speed limit is set to balance reasonable progress against the risk of injury from an accident at that speed. However, it's up to you whether you travel at night in a rainstorm or wait until the weather is better in the day. You can attend a motor race which has crash barriers and fences, but you get to chose where you stand and the back of your admission ticket will say there is risk of injury or death. Similarly, if you attend an airshow the organisers will have a display line and the pilots should have display clearance, but you are assuming some personal risk. In the UK, in most scenarios, you get to chose the level of risk you assume in an already regulated environment.

It's fair to say that while the people out on their bikes or driving their cars assumed some risk of a traffic accident, they probably would not think it was acceptable for an aircraft flying for fun in an airshow was going to make this day their last. I doubt their families do either.

Whether you like it or not, when there are a few significant instances of aircraft accidents like this it enters the public consciousness and society will ask if airshows with private fast jets are an acceptable risk. I suspect the answer will soon be no and it should be left to the professionals. Not, sadly, that the professionals are infallible either. Which is unfortunate for those of us who want to see classic aircraft like Gnats and Hunters flying, but that's the way it is.

Indeed, even if officialdom doesn't step in, it wouldn't surprise me if there are legal & insurance ramifications from this incident which makes private display flying prohibitively expensive in the future.

I say all this as someone who had the incredibly good fortune to spend just under 1-hour in WV372 almost 15-years ago when it was part of Delta jets. It was my first and likely only time in a fast-jet and I will always remember the experience. Such a shame that the aircraft is no more. Far more of a tragedy for all of the people and families who have been caught up in this incident.

Lima Juliet

22nd Aug 2015, 17:34

McD

I was there and watched the sad loss of GW in Slovakia in 99. I also watched his practice the day before where he came perilously close to doing the same thing. He needed to unload as he rolled over the top and he seemed to do the same thing twice - second time around with tragic consequencies for both him and an airport workers wife who had been smuggled onto the display line. It was one of the hardest things to watch as the whole thing appeared to be in slow motion and I remember hearing him frantically trying to pull up as you heard the jet pulling to the buffet.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBF52ai6ivc

I posted these words on this very forum a few years back and the great John Farley agreed with my analysis at the time:

"So in my opinion, what might have killed GW?

1. Not unloading during the roll over the top and then burying the nose when below gate height. You could hear him pulling through the light buffet to the heavy buffet as he realised he had run out of room to pull out.

2. I seem to recall that GW was not a display pilot but was the company roll-demo pilot/test pilot. I suspect that he may not gone through the same rigorous work-up process that a display team normally does for a pre-season display authorisation (I might be wrong on this though).

3. The Flying Control Committee (or equivalent in Slovakia) should not have let him display after his pre-airshow display performance (again, in my personal opinion). But that is hindsight."

Full thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/546880-re-visiting-1999-hawk-200-crash-2.html

I too have never seen an accident report to this tragedy, but having just watched the Hunter this afternoon I have had a horrible feeling of deja vu.

LJ

Lima Juliet

22nd Aug 2015, 17:52

I think that this accident may be the beginnings of a change seen after the 1952 Farnborough accident with John Derry and Anthony Richards flying a DH110. That was the last major 3rd party loss of life at a UK airshow (4 times today's fatilities). Pretty much all of today's rules and regs in CAP403 come from Duncan Sandy's inquiry into the 1952 crash.

I must admit, as a Display Director, some display venues have made me feel distinctly uneasy of late when considering the local area at certain venues. Indeed I have displayed at Shoreham about 10 years ago and remember seeing Lancing College close by (the big imposing structure in most of today's tragic pictures) and thinking what would happen if I crashed into that! More recently, some of the camp sites and unofficial spotters enclosures that have sprung up around RIAT have also made me raise an eyebrow - they kind of make a mockery out of the 'crowd line'!

Accidents like the ones we have seen today and with the recent Gnat fatality show that the display venue either needs to have a more sterile display area (ie. not over the venue entrance and a major road) or at least to a higher height above the ground to give the pilot more options should there be an issue.

Very sad to see and such a tragic and needless loss of life, in my humble opinion. My condolences to all involved.

LJ

Cows getting bigger

22nd Aug 2015, 18:05

From a regulatory perspective, there is nothing worse than 'uninvolved third party' fatalities. Politically, this event will make the Battersea A109 crash look almost insignificant.

So sad and probably avoidable. Adieu Hilz.

LJ, we crossed. I agree, Shoreham is not a great place to do a high speed display.

Two's in

22nd Aug 2015, 18:19

1988 may seem like a long time ago, but over 70 people were killed at Ramstein because velocity vectors and sterile areas were not well understood.

JointShiteFighter

22nd Aug 2015, 18:24

My sincerest condolences to the families of all who lost their lives today. It's horrible to think that, that could have been me as I would have needed to travel on that very road to get to the show (instead I decided this morning to go tomorrow, but I shan't be going at all now). I hope those who were injured make a full recovery.

As for the Typhoon at RIAT 2005, I saw the same display sequence by the same pilot just two months later (incidentally, at Shoreham). During his display at RIAT, he had the opportunity to pull the handles, but he didn't. I'm curious as to why? He got very, very lucky and I hope he's still enjoying his fast-jet flying career, a decade later.

Feathers McGraw

22nd Aug 2015, 18:32

In response to JSF's comment, would a Typhoon display pilot have the velocity vector on the HUD and be making use of it in a display? If the VV is above the horizon it means you are going to miss the ground...

Above The Clouds

22nd Aug 2015, 18:41

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/748445/stream_img.jpg

From the heat signature it does seem to be developing thrust contrary to comments elsewhere about a flame out.

Courtney Mil

22nd Aug 2015, 18:41

But VV below the horizon does not mean you are going to hit the ground. It also can't tell you if you're not.

TaranisAttack

22nd Aug 2015, 18:43

I was at the Bournemouth Airshow today, an excellent display was put on! Planes performing stunts near the ground, often in quite old aircraft, it's natural that there are going to be accidents. Lots of precautions are taken to minimise the risks, and the pilots are clearly very capable. We equally could consider the risks to life by having so many people, who are often elderly, out in the sun and at risk of dehydration and heatstroke. Or the risks of so many people travelling to and from a major event. The very small risk is the price of such an incredible show. Naturally my condolences go to those involved with and affected by the accident.

Darvan

22nd Aug 2015, 18:45

Oh dear, so, so tragic.

My heart goes out to the bereaved partners and families of all caught up in this hideous maelstrom (RIP).

If this was XV 372, it was the first Hunter I ever flew - with Jim Rutter at Honington on 23 May 1983. Is this the 'start of the end' of fast jet participation on the 'regional airshow' circuit? :(:(

TOWTEAMBASE

22nd Aug 2015, 18:48

Isn't it also the anniversary of a very tragic event that took place at Manchester airport today ?

Feathers McGraw

22nd Aug 2015, 18:51

OK Courtney, I was aware of that but I don't know when the VV would move from below horizon to above so I wondered if it gave the pilot a cue that he was going to make it.

Fonsini

22nd Aug 2015, 19:09

I hate to think what the outcome of this might be, but the UK does so dearly love to ban anything perceived as remotely dangerous.

Maybe a "g limit" on vintage aircraft could satisfy all and make things safer at the same time. Too much ?

Lima Juliet

22nd Aug 2015, 19:16

Feathers

If you have waited for your VV to be above the horizon it is probably too late to leave the aircraft if it isn't!

LJ :ok:

GeeRam

22nd Aug 2015, 19:25

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/748445/stream_img.jpg

From the heat signature it does seem to be developing thrust contrary to comments elsewhere about a flame out.

That photo also seems to confirm (if my eyes aren't deceiving me) the reports of the flaps being deployed at the commencement of the pull up and all through the sequence.....as shown in the photo linked by Glad Rag earlier and others taken in the sequence...........

:\

Captain Kirk

22nd Aug 2015, 19:28

Awful. And as others have already identified, very similar to GW in 99. A common factor is the difficulty of having a meaningful 'gate' in a rolling manoeuvre - a gate height is only valid if the subsequent roll and pitch rates match those for which the gate was established - roll (out) too slowly or pitch (down) too fast and disaster beckons, irrespective of any preceding gate. So in other words, a gate is no guarantee of safety in a barrel roll or similar manoeuvre - and can even create a false sense of security.

The shame is no-one needs to see extreme manoeuvres from classic aircraft - they can't compete with modern, agile ac - their appeal lies in their classic lines and their sound - IMHO a flat display with lots of plan form passes would keep the crowds perfectly happy.

Thoughts with all involved.

Royalistflyer

22nd Aug 2015, 19:37

I agree entirely with Captain Kirk, seeing vintage aircraft is in my opinion enjoyable. But flinging them around the sky is unnecessary. A few turn to show off the lines, some good passes to be seen and heard at close quarters should be sufficient. While I agree with the condolences regarding the loss of another pilot (and most of us have been in danger of that at some time in our careers) I also mourn the loss of rare aircraft that need not have gone down.
Air shows? By all means! But aerobatics for vintage aircraft should cease I think.

Fluffy Bunny

22nd Aug 2015, 19:37

Fair point, but a quarter-cloverleaf is a fairly standard way of getting your aircraft facing back towards the display line.

BlackIsle

22nd Aug 2015, 19:41

I have hesitated until now about responding having read some posts on here suggesting ( concluding?) this accident is attributable to the age of the aircraft. Seeing yet another recent post referring to "vintage aircraft", I must now question whether some of these folk ( or readers and poorly informed journos ) have an appreciation of the reality that, irrespective of an aircraft's age, there is a height above a display venue below which should an aircraft be placed in a vertical descent there is insufficient height left to effect a recovery. Do those holding these views about vintage aircraft believe that today's most modern aircraft could not be lost in the manner of today's tragic occurrence? Like other posters on here I too recall the F4 accident at Abingdon when a near neighbour of mine along with a mate who was on my Officer Cadet Entry lost their lives.

Before I am now jumped on about having determined the cause of this accident, I am properly mindful of other possiblities leading to an inability to recover from the vertical even if reached above the the minimum height to enable recovery.

Trim Stab

22nd Aug 2015, 19:44

I suspect this incident will lead to new legislation governing air-shows.

Firstly, if the public pay to go to an airshow (or motorsports event), they usually have to sign some sort of acknowledgement that spectating in the show is dangerous. In this instance, people who may have had no idea whatsoever that there was a nearby airshow have been killed.

Second, how on earth was authorisation given to a display that could risk (for whatever reason) a national road, used by public who were not attending the airshow? Outrageous really.

Lima Juliet

22nd Aug 2015, 19:44

Captain Kirk and Royallist Flyer

I agree. On the BBMF they deliberately don't max perform the aircraft to give a margin for error and seek to 'display' the aircraft rather than provide astonishment. They leave that to the newer aircraft...

LJ

Royalistflyer

22nd Aug 2015, 19:51

I think a lot of us here have been to air shows since we were children, and taken part in them when we were adults. Maybe I'm getting old and cautious, but I don't ever remember being particularly thrilled by aerobatics at air shows - I wanted to see the aircraft and I wanted to see them fly - old and new. But I think we shouldn't be be attempting to appeal to the lowest IQ crowd. I'm not singling out vintage aircraft. I think there have been enough accidents with non-vintage aircraft over the years when people got a little clever/misjudged and as a result lots of people got killed and injured. I just think that there should be a re-think in order to save the flying displays from being banned.

Captain Kirk

22nd Aug 2015, 19:57

I've just watched the video again and the pull-out does appear to be a single-plane pitch (no rolling) so a gate height at the top would have been valid, providing that speed was under control. It is not, however, a quarter clover, as the pull to inverted happens before reaching the vertical, with a rolling pull that will reduce height achieved at the top.

Incidentally, this is not speculation - we have a video - it is observation. I could, of course, be mistaken. I will not, however, speculate on why the manoeuvre was chosen or flown in this manner.

Captain Kirk

22nd Aug 2015, 20:03

LJ/Royalist - spot on.

ATC - blimey, that just looked like someone who had little idea of what they were doing...!

Exnomad

22nd Aug 2015, 20:12

When I was taught Aerobatics, always dinned into me was adequate height, it is very easy to lose height in a manevor.
I know at an airshow you want to be close to the crowd, but it can still look impessive 500 feet higher

Cows getting bigger

22nd Aug 2015, 20:13

BBC are saying that the pilot is still alive.

Paracab

22nd Aug 2015, 20:19

Cows getting bigger,

There is a pic doing the rounds with what looks like a bang seat in the air, albeit on fire, with what appears to be a person in it. The angle it is at is consistent with the angle of the jet at the time and the canopy on the aircraft is up.

I'm saddened but not surprised at the Police Superintendent warning of further fatalities. Having been in the emergency services for some eighteen years, I would take that as a very high probability. They generally only hint like that when they know themselves, but it's too early to formally confirm. A terrible day.

JagRigger

22nd Aug 2015, 20:22

Incredible he's still alive. Having been at Abingdon when the F4 went in, I agree the attitude of the aircraft just prior to impact is so similar

TaranisAttack

22nd Aug 2015, 20:40

@Paracab
Witness reports seem to indicate pilot was pulled from burning wreckage, so that would suggest no ejection. This assumes they don't consider a parachute as "burning wreckage". If the aircraft had something to break it's fall and slow it's forward velocity that could help survivability. The cockpit etc would help protect against the fireball assuming the plane didn't clear it. Either way it's incredible to make it to hospital from an impact and fireball like that!

Tashengurt

22nd Aug 2015, 20:46

As a non pilot who has enjoyed airshows for many years can I say that I'd rather see a display and not be wowed than not see one at all.
I'm grateful for all those that choose to keep old aircraft flying. I hope my son's will get to enjoy many displays too.
More importantly though, my thoughts are with all affected by today's events.
Many of us know that the ripples from such a tragedy spread much wider and flow much deeper than most appreciate.

BEagle

22nd Aug 2015, 20:52

GeeRam wrote: That photo also seems to confirm (if my eyes aren't deceiving me) the reports of the flaps being deployed at the commencement of the pull up and all through the sequence.....as shown in the photo linked by Glad Rag earlier and others taken in the sequence...........

Use of 23° flap in the Hunter whilst manoeuvring was quite common when I was taught ACM at Brawdy - just don't leave any flap down above M0.9 or you won't recover. Not relevant here though...

I think we used 320 KIAS and 23° flap for low speed loops - apart from my chum Ozzie who misheard the brief and tried 230 KIAS....once.

It would be amazing if the pilot survived this awful event....:uhoh:

I saw the RIAT Typhoon nearly spread itself in front of the VIP enclosures.... Not quite as bad as a CF-18 I once saw at an Abbotsford airshow, who recovered (just) at about 30 ft and was immediately told to depart and land elsewhere.

Woodford Spitfire, Duxford Firefly, Abingdon F-4, Sknyliv Su-27..... Too many vertical manoeuvres have resulted in accidents over recent years

Above The Clouds

22nd Aug 2015, 20:54

Picture originally posted by Flarkey
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNBYttRWIAAHueY.jpg

Paracab
There is a pic doing the rounds with what looks like a bang seat in the air, albeit on fire, with what appears to be a person in it. The angle it is at is consistent with the angle of the jet at the time and the canopy on the aircraft is up.

Looking at this picture the canopy is still attached and there is no sign of an ejector seat launch tube which could suggest there was no ejection sequence, quite incredible that he has survived.

God's speed with the recovery and deepest condolences to everyone else involved with this sad and tragic event.

Paracab

22nd Aug 2015, 20:58

Cheers Above The Clouds,

That is the picture I was referring to; I guess everything immediately post crash seemed like wreckage amid the chaos.

Fluffy Bunny

22nd Aug 2015, 20:58

The planes tv footage from the crowdline is pretty gruesome. It's well shot and has the aircraft almost full frame at impact. However, someone at planes tv is working fairly hard to keep all the "pirate" clips from out of the public domain.
The Daily Fail's stills appear to be either from the footage or from someone with a very similar vantage point. What they don't show however, is the high alfa and the rolling wobble as the inevitable becomes apparent.

k3k3

22nd Aug 2015, 21:07

I saw this happen. As the aircraft was approaching the ground I could see the underside of the aircraft as it came towards the runway but still descending. it then disappeared behind the heads of the crowd in front of me, a second late I saw the fireball. Strangely, I heard no sound.

Hangarshuffle

22nd Aug 2015, 21:48

Hope this is the end at last of vintage military aircraft and vintage ex military pilots doing unnecessarily higher risk displays over the UK. Needs to be after this year.
BZ yet again to the fire and emergency services involved for keeping calm and carrying on (bravely).

Fonsini

22nd Aug 2015, 22:41

I just saw the aftermath video - cars on fire, wreckage - horrific.

Not posting it here, if anyone feels a need, PM me.

BlackIsle

22nd Aug 2015, 23:10

So what exactly is the much mentioned concern about vintage aircraft? Is it age alone? Is it serviceability? Is that why this tragic accident occurred? Unlike Hangarshuffle, I hope very much that there will still be future opportunities for aircraft displays to include vintage aircraft.

There may be a need to further regulate displays but it is difficult to see how it is likely to require a different set of rules based on aircraft age. Minimum heights and types of manoeuvre may need to be reconsidered, regardless surely of aircraft age, to maximise safety at the display venue. If any display is flown, any participating aircraft can of course still experience a failure rendering it at worst unflyable, a pilot can make a mistake and a pilot can be incapacitated hence display accidents will still occur on or near the venue.

Hangarshuffle refers to vintage ex mil pilots in a manner which suggests some pre-judgement of them? I stress that this response is not intended to imply anything untoward in relation to yesterday's awful event, but rather to pick up on Hangarshuffle's post.

Romeo Oscar Golf

22nd Aug 2015, 23:18

****e Fonsini do you think we are brain dead or just stupid, Of course the aftermath scenes are going to be dreadful...we don't need to be told.
I've lost too many mates both training and operational flying and a few in display flying as well. I've come to a personal conclusion that, as has already been said, it's time for these super aircraft of our "better" years should operate as the BoB Flight. That is... show off but in undemanding profiles.... we the public will still love it.
I hope the pilot survives and then survives his aftermath and sincerly felt condolences to the families and friends of those who died.

Flugplatz

22nd Aug 2015, 23:22

Same here, saw it but no sound. Just as they were announcing the tragedy (everyone was totally silent) and that the displays were suspended immediately, the Sea Vixen turned up and did a lazy orbit with the crash smoke drifting up. Chills down my spine from knowing about the fifties DH.110 break-up at Farnborough.

RIP all those innocent motorists on the A27

Romeo Oscar Golf

22nd Aug 2015, 23:54

Sadly aircraft crash. This occurs irrespective of their height, speed, profile or the age of the aircraft.
I'm intrigued as to which part of the CAP you mention, may have been contravened.
Just in case you are not too sharp,when an aircraft falls out of the sky, the damage/fatalities can be horrific, or nothing. We live in a land with little "open country" so its a lottery.
More people are killed in road accidents every year,,,,,so lets ban private transport!

Homelover

23rd Aug 2015, 00:07

Romeo Oscar Golf said " sadly aircraft crash". True. But , in case you're not too sharp ROG, aircraft are more likely to crash when they are deliberately pointed at the ground at low altitude. Like during air displays. Which tend to attract large crowds, which in turn increases the risk of a mass-casualty event. Just sayin'.

Davef68

23rd Aug 2015, 00:19

You have to wonder about the mentality of people who post the aftermath videos on the internet.

Give the poor souls who died some dignity rather than being a freak show for the ghoulsih.

RIP to those who perished and fingers crossed for those in hospital - with that fireball recoveries could be long and painful.

JointShiteFighter

23rd Aug 2015, 01:03

People have been discussing ejection again, which leads me to a question.

A couple of weeks ago, during the discussions following the Gnat crash and subsequent untimely passing of pilot, Kev Whyman (RIP), it was mentioned that civilian operated fast-jets are unlikely to have a live ejector seat, due to the costs involved in maintaining them, the availability of spare parts (which is a significant problem with vintage aircraft), the costs to insure aircraft with live ejector seats (not to mention, the problem of getting the CAA to approve it in the first place) and the possible lack of access to adequate training facilities to maintain ejection currency.

This was a civilian owned airframe, right? So perhaps the Pilot didn't have the luxury of live firing handles between his legs so couldn't eject after realising the aircraft was doomed, so didn't even attempt to (hence why the canopy didn't jettison).

It has been reported that he once flew Harriers operationally in HMF, so with a good background flying fast-jets, why wouldn't he eject if he was able to?

Rhino power

23rd Aug 2015, 01:28

It has been reported that he once flew Harriers operationally in HMF, so with a good background flying fast-jets, why wouldn't he eject if he was able to?

Maybe he thought he could recover the situation right up to the point of impact, maybe he was suffering some sort of incapacitation, maybe he pulled the handle and nothing happened, or pulled the handle a fraction of a second too late (canopy was open/jettisoning in one image)? Only one person knows the answer, and I'm sure that if he (hopefully) survives his injuries and recovers, all will be revealed, until then, all this second guessing is largely irrelevant and utterly pointless*, at least until the AAIB release any details...

-RP

*In my humble opinion...

O-P

23rd Aug 2015, 02:06

Beags,

You mentioned that the loop in the Hunter was flown with 23 deg flap. In some early photos, the jet appears to have flaps deployed. There is, however, a photo (in the DM) that appears to show the aircraft emerging from some trees, nose up, and with the flaps up.

Very sad day.

Edit: On closer inspection, the flaps are still deployed. I didn't realize they were split flaps. Sorry for the post.

mickjoebill

23rd Aug 2015, 02:25

This wide angle side view shows the angle of descent, including in the last few seconds an abrupt correction. (in the few frames before it disappears behind the chimney, hard to see on the first viewing)

XjmglwWS3xU

Mickjoebill

McDuff

23rd Aug 2015, 04:57

"So in my opinion, what might have killed GW?

1. Not unloading during the roll over the top and then burying the nose when below gate height. You could hear him pulling through the light buffet to the heavy buffet as he realised he had run out of room to pull out.

2. I seem to recall that GW was not a display pilot but was the company roll-demo pilot/test pilot. I suspect that he may not gone through the same rigorous work-up process that a display team normally does for a pre-season display authorisation (I might be wrong on this though).

3. The Flying Control Committee (or equivalent in Slovakia) should not have let him display after his pre-airshow display performance (again, in my personal opinion). But that is hindsight."

Thanks, LJ.

Barrel rolls have killed several of my colleagues; I hadn't realised that GW was exiting a roll when he ran out of air.

He was a display pilot inasmuch as he was displaying the Hawk, but I don't think that he had flown low-level aeros at any stage before that. Nor do I know how much workup he might have had, but his fellows on BAe Flight Ops were all ex-RAF and I should have thought imbued with the culture of proper preparation.

We were at Valley and Brüggen together, and I think of him often.

McD

AGS Man

23rd Aug 2015, 07:07

A very sad day and my condolences to all involved.
I personally like to see vintage jets flying and to those who say they should not I would ask how old are the Hawks flown by the RAFAT?

Royalistflyer

23rd Aug 2015, 07:31

It has been reported that he once flew Harriers operationally in HMF, so with a good background flying fast-jets, why wouldn't he eject if he was able to?

If so, he was a professional, and its just possible that aware of all the people under him he elected to stay in and try to pull it out.

parabellum

23rd Aug 2015, 07:45

FantomZorbin

23rd Aug 2015, 08:07

parabellum ..................... :ok: :D

XV490

23rd Aug 2015, 08:12

The last time anything comparable to yesterday's tragedy occurred in the UK was the Farnborough disaster in 1952. The decision that day to continue the flying programme seems callous 63 years later - because our attitudes as a society have changed so very much.

I, for one, would not wish to speculate about the causes of what happened yesterday, but I would bet my last pound that it will lead to rule changes and new restrictions demanded by the tragic outcome - i.e., at least seven dead, who were going about their business on a public road beyond the airfield boundary.

As far as I'm aware, that makes it unprecedented in British aviation history: so whoever chairs the public inquiry is pretty much obliged to recommend measures to avoid anything similar happening again.

A terrible day - and my thoughts are with all those affected.

glad rag

23rd Aug 2015, 08:39

GeeRam wrote:

Use of 23° flap in the Hunter whilst manoeuvring was quite common when I was taught ACM at Brawdy - just don't leave any flap down above M0.9 or you won't recover. Not relevant here though...

I think we used 320 KIAS and 23° flap for low speed loops - apart from my chum Ozzie who misheard the brief and tried 230 KIAS....once.

Thank you for the clarification BEagle..

Pontius Navigator

23rd Aug 2015, 08:42

XV, in 1968 a French Atlantic crashed at Farnborough. We continued to display on the following days.

Shaft109

23rd Aug 2015, 08:52

Thanks to the poster who linked the JP vid at Southport last year. I was with my nephew on the beach and missed the rolling part but when I looked up noticed him in an odd position relativento the pier and climbing immediately away and clearing. I've thought since something was wrong but that vid confirms it, as it WAS low during the recovery.

XV490

23rd Aug 2015, 08:57

Pontius,

Thanks for that fact.

I just wanted to point out that the flying programme continued at Farnborough in 1952 within minutes of the DH110 coming down and while the clear-up was in progress. That would be unlikely to happen today.

Shaft109

23rd Aug 2015, 09:04

Managed to find another video of that incident and it was a much closer shave than I realised!

Hangarshuffle

23rd Aug 2015, 09:29

Sorry lads but its true. This is an era that's probably, after this, coming to an end.
And I'm sorry but I for one will be glad.
There are so many crashes I can think of involving these old planes and their crews, that my former colleagues attended some of them/witnessed them.
The country has been very fortunate that people on the ground were generally usually missed - that ended yesterday.
I mean going back, I can think of both Sea Fury's in the 80's or 90's. The Firefly. The Mosquito. The Jetstream. The Blenheim. The Beaver..several Hurricanes and Spitfires. The Gnat and now the Hunter. Its a long list...The recent Lancaster fire - incredibly fortunate no one was killed. The Victor near take off thing..it just goes on and on.
You've been (or we have been-the non flying ground living people that is) getting away with it, every Summer for years.
Do some of you seriously think this sort of risk is still acceptable in the modern age?
You've got to weigh up the money generated and the joy derived against the risk to the general public overhead a small highly populated little island.
The planes are getting older, the money to maintain them harder to find, the skill base of the experts who flew and maintained them disappearing.
I've seen this close hand, seen the pressures they worked under to keep them flying.
Well, I've said it for years on Prune, this is an industry that needs closer and harder scrutiny from people outside of the club.
Or even call time on it?
It presently doesn't add up in favour of the safety of the public.
The lad above who said I make outrageous posts...I like being a contrarian and thinking against the herd. I spout probably as much but no more bollocks that many others on here. Who was right here? Me.
There will be millions sitting over their cornflakes this morning only asking the same basic question - why has this been allowed to happen?
Again.. the thing is I watched Air shows and was involved with them for 30 years....military ones as a grunt.. It made me progressively more and more uneasy...no going to go into that on here.
My feeling is this sort of thing will simply happen again and again until the public or print media get fed up. Its a big money generating industry and anyone who ever puts their head over the parapet generally gets sneered at (like me). Not an easy task to bring it down -money acts for its defence.
Anyway, I will go on avoiding air shows (as far as I am allowed to) like the plague.
And my true condolences to the families of the people on that road.
HS.

Peter Brown

23rd Aug 2015, 09:32

Another beautiful historic aeroplane lost during a flying display. In an adrenalin fuelled environment the human can be tempted to go a 'little further' perhaps? We have lost various warbirds due to commencement of a loop from inexplicably low altitude, and on a day when the air is particularly thin due to nearly 30C OAT this kind of accident is more likely to occur. The RR Spit being an example. The Shoreham Hunter appeared to be fully airworthy, correctly configured, and free of problems throughout the entire sequence.

Air displays involving 'older' aeroplanes should be no more dangerous than ones with modern types if the engineering work is sound and followed the book. I do worry when high energy aircraft - of a scarce nature - are pushed for the sake of display flying. Not because of engineering/structural limitations, but the consequences of a misjudged moment. While many warbirds have aerobatic capability they are often not the best vehicles for aerobatic displays. Surely, most people who have 'feeling' for veteran aeroplanes love to see and hear them in the air, but do not necessarily wish to see them entering the domain of the 'stunt plane'? I am very happy to see our heritage on the wing but do not wish to see it put at unnecessary risk.

The concern following the Shoreham event is for the clunking fist of Heath & Safety and the inevitable appearance of they who see this as an avenue toward exercising their voices and inventing draconian restrictions on display flying.

The tragedy of yesterday is immeasurable in human terms. Let us hope for the continuation of display flying, but perhaps employing a more tempered approach to what we do with precious vintage aeroplanes at the time?

ExRAFRadar

23rd Aug 2015, 09:50

Can I ask why the manoeuvre was performed within distance of such a public road?

I presume the pilot would not do it over the crowd line so why was it deemed acceptable to do it over/near a very busy road?

Homelover

23rd Aug 2015, 09:54

hangarshuffle, you will be aware that Haddon Cave recommended adopting a 'Questioning Culture'. Being a contrarian is part of that, and I applaud you for it.

The people inside the gate at the Shoreham Airshow paid their entry fee and in doing so accepted the risk of being in close proximity to fast jets flying at the edge of their flying envelopes, where the margins for error are small. BUT the people on the A27 didn't accept that risk. I'm with you; I would end the displays of this type.

Frostchamber

23rd Aug 2015, 10:02

I don't think knee jerk reactions are needed, although at the risk of stating the obvious it would be right for this to be followed by some expert consideration of lessons learnable. Comments around the lack of need to push vintage airframes though aerobatics (it's enough for people to see them displayed) and eg "start high and fly down" sound measured and sensible to me. But hopefully better minds than mine will draw some sound conclusions, based on a good and dispassionate view of the facts.

Pontius Navigator

23rd Aug 2015, 10:05

I have sympathy with HS view. We get as much pleasure watching the various Spitfires, Hurricane, Dakota and Lancaster doing level passes over our garden or across. Loops and rolls aren't necessary for the sheer joy of seeing them.

Once saw a Canberra, low, say 1200 feet at the top, lower its undercarriage while inverted before descending. An accomplished piece of flying whose subtlety failed to distract the great unwashed from the beer tent.

Tourist

23rd Aug 2015, 10:08

I disagree.

I think these beautiful aircraft should all be flown even if that means they eventually are lost.

In a museum they are a machine. In the air they are art.

I think we all need to fight back against this modern idea that dangerous is always bad and that the worst thing that can happen is death.

Life is about living, not about avoiding death.

Cows getting bigger

23rd Aug 2015, 10:09

Some of the best and most enjoyable display flying I have ever seen is the rolling and sweeping display ordinarily undertaken by a Spitfire at proms in the park.

Clockwork Mouse

23rd Aug 2015, 10:14

Please keep this tragedy in proportion. Air displays give enormous pleasure to millions but sometimes **** happens. Avoidance of unnecessary risk is a praiseworthy goal, but how far do you take it? You can't fly anywhere in the UK without crossing busy roads. Any aircraft flying over populated land is liable to cause damage or casualties if something goes wrong, but should that result in their grounding?
At this rate we'll have men with red flags walking in front of road vehicles. Hangarshuffle doesn't like air displays so wants to ban them, and here's an excuse. Personally I wish they would ban football!

XV490

23rd Aug 2015, 10:29

ExRAFRadar

23rd Aug 2015, 10:35

"Life is about living, not about avoiding death"

Tell that to the families of the people who died while simply going from a to b on the A27

Homelover

23rd Aug 2015, 10:35

Clockwork Mouse.

you can display oversea. Coastal displays like Lowestoft and South Shields might be the way these guys can continue, if people still want to watch them. Of course, it's tricky displaying oversea, so they might crash a few more, but at least there's less risk to innocent bystanders.

Tourist

23rd Aug 2015, 10:44

Tell that to the families of the people who died while simply going from a to b on the A27

I'm trying to think of any activity that doesn't have the potential to impact the lives of others.

If I drive to the seaside and have a puncture I might swerve into the way of another car.

When I go on holiday flying with a Middle Eastern airline I am tacitly supporting regimes with appalling human rights records.

When I buy clothes I support sweatshops in China.

Where do you stop?

In this life everything we do has an effect on others.

Crashes at airshows would not even show up on a chart of the top 1000 things we do every day that negatively affect others, so why the gnashing?

I think it is just because it is good telly and the 24hr rolling news make it into a big thing.

strake

23rd Aug 2015, 10:58

Tourist,
If there are people with correct experience who wish to fly vintage aircraft and people who wish to attend airshows (me included) then both have a prerequisite to accept the potential for danger.

However, these victims were not at an airshow. They were driving along the road. I'm struggling to find the difference for the families, between the Edinburgh dustbin lorry accident and this. Both completely 'innocent' groups of people.

Romeo Oscar Golf

23rd Aug 2015, 11:01

Homelover said
in case you're not too sharp ROG, aircraft are more likely to crash when they are deliberately pointed at the ground at low altitude. Like during air displays.
Based on statistical evidence? You are wrong of course.....a brief glance at aircraft accident statistics would prove that.

Aircraft which are "deliberately pointed at the ground at low altitude" (I think you mean level or height) are likely to have a pilot in control who knows what he or she is doing and has practiced long and hard under close supervision at higher altitudes until the routine is perfected.

Romeo Oscar Golf

23rd Aug 2015, 11:16

Strake, I believe there is a major difference between the two tragedies (it was Glasgow btw and my son and g'son were there-I'd suggested it was a good day out).The difference is about the drivers concerned and their suitability to be there.
However for those killed and their families both were devastating tragedies .. and they will demand answers as to how and why it happened and what will be done to prevent it happening in the future. It is their right to ask these questions and I suspect the Glasgow tragedy will be easier to resolve than Shoreham.
Like many others have said I think future Air Displays will be considerably different to those we enjoy at present. Probably a good thing.

Tourist

23rd Aug 2015, 11:25

Strake

I can see many differences. Negligence being one.

Everything we do carries risk.

The evidence shows that the risk from airshows is tiny.

Even 1 in 1000000000 chances happen occasionally.

A huge proportion of motorbike rides are purely for the entertainment of the rider. When a motorbike hits a pedestrian, they are innocent too. Do we ban bikes?

When a cricket ball/baseball flies into the crowd, occasionally someone gets hurt.
Ban Cricket?

Everyone is going to die.

That is unavoidable

Every death we delay by banning something merely adds to the death toll from something else.

You might, quite reasonably, say that at least we have extended the life a bit.

My answer would be that be what is the point in living longer if you have banned all the fun things?

I don't believe, as many seem to at present, that the goal of life should be to persist as long as possible.

Ogre

23rd Aug 2015, 11:31

Tourist

Concur completely. Everything we do has a risk associated with it, it's just that we tend to ignore the risks that are "statistically" negligible because the probability of it occurring are very, very, very, very low.

Strake

Sorry mate, but the chance of getting hit by an aircraft is always there as long as you are under an aircraft, but the average human looks at the numbers and says "that'll never happen". There is no such thing as "absolutely safe", just a level of safety that acceptable to you.

How many people die on our roads every day when they were just popping down to the shops / into the office / visiting someone? Yet we still drive cars.

I feel sorrow that this event happened, my thoughts are with everyone involved, from the pilot and the groundcrew and the staff who organised the event, to the passersby who died, and the emergency services who attended. However, I would not call for a ban on flying displays, just like I would not call for a ban on motor racing, hang gliding, or anything else that people do for a bit of excitement which ultimately could kill the participant and anyone around them.

frg7700

23rd Aug 2015, 11:50

Outside of some folk who have been tagged as having slightly, controversial, shall we say? Opinions. Nobody is seriously suggesting banning air displays.

They are suggesting taking a long, hard look at the what, how, and where of air displays. Something which given yesterday's events is just about inevitable.

I'd be very careful about talk of being "proportional" too. You'd be surprised how people can view getting jollies vice not causing violent death in proportion. Particularly for something which is by and large a niche interest.

Roland Pulfrew

23rd Aug 2015, 12:04

Do some of you seriously think that this sort of risk is acceptable in the modern age?

Yes!

It presently doesn't add up in favour of safety of the public

Really? In 2014 there were 1713 people killed on the UK's roads. How many died at UK air shows?

Lima Juliet

23rd Aug 2015, 12:26

And how many people go to airshows compared to driving on the roads Roland? Indeed your choice of stastics is quite unfortunate as at least 7 more people have died 'on the roads' thanks to a seemingly poorly thought through display area.

Recently when I was Display Director at an airshow I ended up paying £800 to close a small country road that ran through the main display axes. We also closed a public footpath. Both myself and my Flying Control Committee thought that the risk was too great and that by not having one less display aircraft and spending that £800 then we were truly not ALARP. It would be interesting to see Shoreham's risk assessment on the A27 and why they thought that flying high energy low-level manoeuvres over it was ok. Now that is with hindsight, but there are an awful lot of displays that seem to have similar groups of people and vehicles close to the display area - Waddington with the A15 and Fairford with the plethora of car parks and camp sites come to mind.

I don't think Airshows should stop or that vintage jets should be banned, but I do believe that a rethink following this tragedy is required. In 1952 Mr Duncan Sandys led a Public Inquiry when 30-odd were killed at Farnborough - I suspect we will be having the same. But that's common in aviation safety, we constantly strive to learn to be wise for the future - that's what we do...

LJ

TaranisAttack

23rd Aug 2015, 12:35

@Roland Pulfrew
Deaths at UK airshows in 2015? Uhh 7.

According to Wikipedia:
2015: 7 (shoreham)
2014: 0
2013: 0
2012: 1 (de Havilland DH.53, Bedfordshire). Only fatality was the pilot
2011: 1 (Red Arrows, Bournemouth). Only fatality was the pilot

So in the last 5 years there were 8, that is 1.6 deaths per year.

Causes of death in the UK
Malaise and fatigue: 265 deaths
Hanging: 2,011
Self Harm: 3,377
Motorbike accidents: 347
Falling: 3,649
According to this document:
http://2.bp.********.com/-_vkd37fssJE/UIUV_AxaU0I/AAAAAAAADdA/VSf3c0mXSho/s1600/Factfile_deaths_large.png

charliegolf

23rd Aug 2015, 12:42

You missed the Gnat. Miss any others? And your numbers add to 9, not 8.

orca

23rd Aug 2015, 12:43

I concur entirely with Leon. I remember from my brief sojourn on the display circuit that there were many restrictions for distance from the crowd depending on speed and closing vector - it seemed incoherent to me at the time that those who had paid to watch an air show were thus protected whilst those that sat in a nearby field (cue Pprune indignation at ticket evasion), those who lived nearby and those simply going about their business were not to the same degree. Not that conurbations and roads weren't pointed out and avoided as much as possible of course.

wrt fatalities Is 9 low or high? Some would go for low, I would argue that 1 is too high.

strake

23rd Aug 2015, 12:44

I see the responses but if I were a member of the families involved, it's not a tragedy, it's an outrage.
How can it be acceptable that a relative, who I waved goodbye to this morning, is killed by an aircraft from an airshow - while they are driving to work, play or otherwise while not connected to the event?
The fact is, for whatever reason, people who enjoy their sport/hobby as pilot's or organisers have killed innocent people.

roving

23rd Aug 2015, 12:46

I cannot see what relevance accident statistics on UK roads have to do with accident statistics at privately hosted air displays. A better comparison would be between air displays and F1 racing.

My late father, a QFI rated 'exceptional', between operational tours flew in RAF air displays in the late 1940's and was a University Air Squadron instructor in the early 1950's, at a time when these Squadrons competed in Air displays.

There is an important difference between RAF pilots and students performing aerobatics as part of their training and retired RAF pilots engaging in aerobatics at public events, the sole intention of which is to entertain.

barnstormer1968

23rd Aug 2015, 12:54

Taranis

Your stats are actually very interesting, and do show that the air show you mention is quite dangerous as far as stats go IMHO.

Although your stats show several years worth of air show fatalities, it's worth remembering they only concern a very very small number of people, and only for a few hours per year, and very few of the people concerned are in a work environment (where most accidents happen) or driving (another large accident group)

I'm not sure how trying to compare that to another group containing over 60.000.000 million people 24 hours per day for 365 days is 'apples and oranges' :)

TaranisAttack

23rd Aug 2015, 12:55

@charliegolf
Thanks! My info was based on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_accidents_and_incidents#2015

Fluffy Bunny

23rd Aug 2015, 12:57

Roving,
The comparisons are being made, because, the aircraft did not come down within the airfield boundary. It ploughed through traffic on a very busy bit of the public highway. In many peoples views this, although it involves an aircraft, it is a high casualty RTC.

The Old Fat One

23rd Aug 2015, 13:01

Some of the crassly stupid comments regarding the comparative risks of undertaking various different activities look like they could have been written by a four year old.

Maybe one or two of you should go and seek out an insurance underwriter and ask to sit down for an hour or two and have them explain their life expectancy tables...it might give you a slightly more educated view of risk.

...and as various sensible head s have commented, most are not seeking internet controversy by demanding all airshows are banned (OK a few are, but they are easily ignored). Most are merely pointing out that beautiful, vintage, aircraft can be beautifully displayed without the need for low level aerobatics.

I fail to see any sort of repression of freedom in that suggestion...only profound common sense and reasoned logic.

Satellite_Driver

23rd Aug 2015, 13:05

If you look at statistics for bystanders killed at UK airshows, then the figures are even starker: 29 in 1952 (the Farnborough DH.110 crash) then zero every year since until now.

However, statistical comparisons are not the end of the matter, as an important factor is how such risks are perceived.

I'll note now that I'm not a pilot (and my flying experience is limited to 25 hours on Bulldogs a quarter of a century ago, and two trips in a JP5 at Cranditz not much later.) But I was an RAF engineering officer, and I'm now a barrister. In both jobs I've had to deal with risk assessment, and as a lawyer I have to look at the questions of how extensive a duty of care to others is in particular circumstances and what constitutes a breach of that duty.

I think it's fair to say that people as a whole are more willing to accept risk if they have some control, or even some perceived level of control, over it. Driving is one of the more dangerous activities most people do, but by and large we accept the risk because of (a) the benefit to ourselves and (b) the feeling that it's a risk we in part control. I'd suggest that's why public transport accidents attract far more publicity than the general run of road accidents; when we get on a train, we are accepting a risk that is entirely controlled by someone else.

In short, there is a hierarchy of risk acceptance:

1) Risks we take because we get a benefit from them, and which we believe are at least partly under our control (e.g. driving, sports.)

2) Risks we take because we get a benefit from them, but where the risk factors are under the control of others (e.g. public transport, surgical procedures.)

3) Risks we do not chose to take and which are not under our control.

The third category particularly vexes people because we can't avoid them and we have no control over them. As such they concern people out of proportion to the actual risk involved. Examples include terrorism, nuclear accidents and the like.

Returning to the matter at hand, if you are displaying an aircraft you are in risk category 1. If you are a spectator at an airshow you are in risk category 2. The people who died yesterday were, I'd argue, mainly in risk category 3. (It is not yet clear if all were road-users or if any were people watching the flying - there is certainly a clump of the latter visible in some of the pictures, and it must have been one of them who took the close-up that's on the front page of half the papers this morning.) I therefore expect that there will be a lot of public concern, or at least concern expressed on behalf of the public (not always the same thing) about how this incident killed people who hadn't even accepted the risk of spectating. That's why it will attract attention out of proportion to the objective fatality risk.

The B Word

23rd Aug 2015, 13:10

You can also add the tragic loss of John Day in his Fokker Eindecker whilst practising for his display with the Great War Display Team in 2014.

Roland Pulfrew

23rd Aug 2015, 13:13

I'm not trying to be controversial or belittle the seriousness of yesterday's accident, just trying to show that life is risky. I get really fed up with the inevitable knee-jerk reaction that has been espoused on here. The stats (before yesterday) would suggest that the only danger from air shows is to those doing the display flying. Maybe we have been lucky; or maybe the rules work pretty well. I for one would not wish to see air shows banned, but would support well intentioned and well thought through regulation.

strake

23rd Aug 2015, 13:18

Why do people keep critisising or spouting statistics for airshows and displaying vintage aircraft? They are there and they should be flown and watched by people who want to do so. What is unacceptable is people not associated with the activity being killed.

jonw66

23rd Aug 2015, 13:33

Expert commentary at its best
Shoreham Airshow Crash 'Horrifically Unlikely' (http://news.sky.com/story/1540230/shoreham-airshow-crash-horrifically-unlikely)

Jon

Royalistflyer

23rd Aug 2015, 13:57

Lima Juliet

23rd Aug 2015, 14:03

I suspect that CAP 403 will need to strengthen this paragraph for roads and public rights of way closure:

"At many events, particularly at airfield sites, the congregation of spectators, outside the airfield boundary, on the live-side, may give organisers cause for concern. Neither the Police nor the Local Authority has the power to remove these people, especially if they have the permission of the landowner upon whose land they are congregating. It is recommended that the Event Organiser anticipates this during the planning process and takes necessary steps to reduce it by, where possible, blocking the view from obvious vantage points. Consideration should also be given to notifying landowners (or over water, pleasure boat owners) of the risks of allowing spectators to watch the display/event from their land/vessel. Landowners/owners should be advised that they have a liability to protect the public from obvious and anticipated risks at public events, and, in the event of an accident, they could be held liable for injuries to spectators on the property. It is advised that professional legal advice on such notification is taken prior to action."

I was looking for something similar in the MAA's Display Flying Handbook but it appears to be being rewritten. I seem to recall there being a line about considering gatherings of the local populace outside the spectators enclosures and how they must be cosnidered in the display planning.

LJ

Wrathmonk

23rd Aug 2015, 14:05

the airshow should have been planned so that the main road was not overflown at all

Just out of idle curiosity, can anyone who has displayed at this venue previously confirm that this is the case i.e the public road is within the "display permitted area". Never been to, or flown into Shoreham.

Ta.

rolling20

23rd Aug 2015, 14:08

I am sure none of us want to see airshows banned. I for one thought after the loss of Hoof Proudfoot and the Lightning,then the Barton Mosquito crash that possibly less 'agressive' flying be undertaken. We all love to see old aircraft flying, but not necessarily to their service limits. I know the Hunter is more than capable , but just to see and hear it is enough, without it being pushed too far? My condolences to all who lost their lives.

Lima Juliet

23rd Aug 2015, 14:20

Yup, A27 goes through the display area and also Lancing College is pretty close by as well. At either end you have the towns of Shoreham and Lancing with loads of houses. It's all a bit tight in my humble opinion when 1/2 mile away is the open sea.

This BBC picture shows the site. The runway is normally the display axis that parallels the crowd line and then for fast jets you are at least 230m from the crowd that would put you over the A27. The spectator's areas are roughly where the mown square is on the bottom right hand edge of the picture.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11083/production/_85136796_map_shoreham.jpg

LJ

Homelover

23rd Aug 2015, 14:28

no, ROG, I mean Altitude. I'll simplify it if you like: If you are close to the ground and you point deliberately at the ground, the margins for error are reduced. That is obvious, even if you are a bit thick, and I don't need to back this up with stats.

Your point about all these guys being highly trained ignores one important point, that too many of them ignore gate heights and end up screwing it. I've supervised a few displays as it happens, and know what I'm talking about. You're wrong. :mad:

XV490

23rd Aug 2015, 14:37

Satellite Driver,
With Sussex Police now suggesting 11 dead, can you please explain, as a barrister, the likely current police investigation and its potential implications for online speculation?
Thank you.

Satellite_Driver

23rd Aug 2015, 15:17

@XV490: Sorry, but no. It would be very premature and quite professionally inappropriate of me to do so.

The most I can do is echo what others have said about the police's responsibility to secure evidence of what is at the very least a serious fatal accident.

XV490

23rd Aug 2015, 15:22

Thank you. I hadn't meant to suggest you say any more than that.
This will indeed be a very complex combination of investigations.

pbeardmore

23rd Aug 2015, 15:29

S Driver, thanks for your post re risk, spot on. It is the point that the casualties had no "stake" in the event and were going about their private lives that will/could be a "game changer" re the perception of risk at future shows. With the exception of seaside shows, many bigger shows need transport infrastructure to get the punters in and out of the location. Its going to be a balancing act re the acceptable risk to those who are using the roads etc to get from A to B. The balance may come in altering the nature of flying whilst over such areas?

NutLoose

23rd Aug 2015, 15:36

Leon was right, his committee did the right thing, paid a little extra and had a side road and footpath close. More difficult in this case - so the airshow should have been planned so that the main road was not overflown at all. Surely good planning isn't too much to ask. Then if there's a disaster, its only the pilot (usually) who suffers. One can imagine new regulations that ban overflight of any road that can't be closed as well of course as civilian houses.

There is always something at a show site, Duxford has the M11 at the end of the runway and on the display line... Where do you stop?
East Midlands has the M3 motorway at the end of the runway and has had a 737 end up on it, do you stop traffic on there during normal airport operations? Heathrows approach is even worse over built up areas, do you move everyone out?
It's all about risk, and every time an aircraft flies a risk is there.

pbeardmore

23rd Aug 2015, 15:41

Surely, the risks are far higher re an aircraft flying aerobatics compared to straight and level? Reducing the risk by changing the nature of the display whilst over such areas would seem and obvious avenue?

Genstabler

23rd Aug 2015, 15:41

So if two of the eleven killed were actually air show spectators, because they were in a different risk category is their loss less tragic, worthy of sympathy, consideration or of compensation than the others who were just passing by? Is this an insurance consideration? What is the significance of a risk category?

glad rag

23rd Aug 2015, 15:41

There is an important difference between RAF pilots and students performing aerobatics as part of their training and retired RAF pilots engaging in aerobatics at public events, the sole intention of which is to entertain.

Yep, I was waiting for someone else to say it as I understand my utterances may be verboten to some..

Sometimes it's far better just to walk away and start afresh...

frg7700

23rd Aug 2015, 15:42

There is always something at a show site, Duxford has the M11 at the end of the runway and on the display line... Where do you stop?
East Midlands has the M3 motorway at the end of the runway and has had a 737 end up on it, do you stop traffic on there during normal airport operations? Heathrows approach is even worse over built up areas, do you move everyone out?
It's all about risk, and every time an aircraft flies a risk is there.

And there are what by consensus are likely to be judged acceptable and unacceptable risks

Public transport, airfreight, defence, SAR, training, emergency service ops are, IMO, likely to be considered "essential" by most.

Display flying rather less so.

foxvc10

23rd Aug 2015, 15:49

Probable insurance hikes could be a wet blanket on a lot of shows......

Aerostar6

23rd Aug 2015, 15:55

Any of you guys with display experience in comparable aircraft have any views on the selected figure which went wrong?
The initial approach was fast and low down the A axis from north to south. Logic would dictate that the only manoeuvre suitable on that axis would be a straight loop. The quarter clover that appears to have been carried out was commenced well before the field boundary and exited at 90 degrees to the A axis going roughly NW, well to the north of the display box which strikes me as an extremely odd selection, as the exit would have been towards the higher terrain at crowd right, and be barely visible to the main crowd line.
If the figure had been commenced at crowd centre, with a left roll, the aircraft would have bust the 230m line heading towards the crowd, which makes even less sense.
The manoeuvre does appear from the very clear video evidence to have been premeditated, but because of the lack of logic, maybe a subtle control problem cannot be ruled out yet?
I speak as a civvie display pilot (piston, not jet) of some years standing and a mate of the pilot.

Tourist

23rd Aug 2015, 16:03

If being an innocent bystander makes a difference, then surely that applies to other events?

I loath football, yet it continues.

Many have died in stadiums, but many more have been killed/injured by hooligans ouside of stadiums/in bars/train stations etc and the general level of negative impact on the outside world by vile football fans is enormous.

Would you ban it because of this?

The only way to make aviation completely safe is to stop it.
This accident is no surprise. Nobody tried to make aviation completely safe.
An accident was always going to happen eventually, that is the nature of probability.
One accident is not too many, that is merely another vacuous statement that comes along with "you can't put a price on life"

Yes you can, and the world does every day.

Those who recommend making the displays more tame miss the point. Old duffers may watch vintage planes nimble around with a terry eye, but the young want excitement.
Tame displays is just a slow death for air displays.
People want excitement, and frankly though nobody seems to admit it, they want danger.

This western obsession with risk aversion is the slow death of our civilisation in my opinion.

Satellite_Driver

23rd Aug 2015, 16:07

@Genstabler:

The significance is the perception by the public, or more likely by the press or politicians. Like it or not, and whatever the objective considerations of risk tell us, this incident will attract added attention because complete bystanders were involved. I think it would have attracted a lot of attention even if all the casualties were spectators who might be deemed to have placed themselves at risk (although when I'm behind the crowd line at a display, I assume that the risk is well-managed and very small). But here, there are factors that will amplify public concern, or at least what the media calls public concern.

Satellite_Driver

23rd Aug 2015, 16:21

I certainly don't think flying displays should be banned. I enjoyed them when I went to Farnborough in the late 70s and early 80s, and I enjoyed them today. It would be very sad indeed only to see historic aircraft as museum exhibits.

But, flying displays have risk: risk for the pilots, risk for the spectators, and, as yesterday's events have shown, risk for bystanders. That risk, especially for spectators and bystanders, is small but not negligible. Remember, risk is defined as the product of likelihood and severity of the consequence, and the consequences of something going wrong at an airshow can be very bad indeed.

You deal with risk in various ways (sometimes called the PRAT model):

Prevent - the only way to prevent risk from air displays is to stop doing them.

Reduce - you reduce the risk by making incidents less likely (careful preparation) and my mitigating the consequences (safe display boxes).

Accept - by and large the risk to display pilots, having been reduced as much as it can be in the circumstances, is accepted.

Transfer - typically by insurance, but whilst this is appropriate for purely financial risks no amount of liability insurance is going to make airshow accidents publicly acceptable.

In short, the only real way, short of stopping air displays (and again, I would hope that never happens) is to reduce the risk. We've done a lot to reduce the risk and I think the statistics since Farnborough in 1952 speak for themselves. But, in light of this accident and the Gnat crash three weeks ago, I can well imagine that there will be pressure on the relevant authorities to look again at how we regulate displays of those aircraft that pose a higher risk in the event of accident, and that will include fast jets.

Chris Scott

23rd Aug 2015, 16:23

The smallness of Shoreham airfield inevitably results in most of a fast-jet display being well outside the airfield boundaries, but there may be another problem from the pilot's viewpoint.

Without suggesting that it has any relevance to this particular accident, one of the significant features of Shoreham is the shortness of its only paved runway (about 3400 ft). Nothing unusual about that for the average GA pilot, but the resulting perspective from the air is very different from that at many airshow venues, not to mention the airfields where fast jets have to be based. If the runway is also narrower than the standard width at such airfields, as I think may be the case at Shoreham, a pilot could easily overestimate his/her height above the airfield when relying on visual cues. **

Some displays, of course, take place over grass airfields, farms, beaches, sea, etcetera (or even below cliffs). But in those cases the FJ pilot knows full-well that he is manoeuvring in a strange environment.

** I'm not suggesting that display pilots are not well aware of the above!

Cows getting bigger

23rd Aug 2015, 16:32

There are two main threads to this accident:

a. An aircraft crashed. Why did it crash?
b. An aircraft crash killed uninvolved individuals on the ground. How adequate are/were the safety procedures and regulations pertaining to air displays?

Sorry for stating the bleeding obvious but I thought it worthwhile.

strake

23rd Aug 2015, 16:39

Cows - your second point is completely relevant. Totally innocent, uninvolved people have been killed because of a sport/hobby which others take part in knowing the risk. As I have stated previously, this is not just a tragedy, it's an outrage for the victims and families involved.

strake

23rd Aug 2015, 17:09

are killed every day in every fatal accident or mishap, and as collateral in every military action our society undertakes.

Go tell that to the families. There is no war in Sussex. Yes, people can be killed in road accidents and all these drivers would know that. However, this is at least 11 uninvolved people killed in an accident caused by a failure of procedures or mechanical systems by people involved in an airshow. It is unacceptable and a crime.

clareprop

23rd Aug 2015, 17:15

With you all the way on this one Strake - it is criminal. People just driving along a road should not die because of the enjoyment or risk-taking of others. The really difficult part for me is knowing they could quite safely do a display a few hundred yards away on the beach...

Davef68

23rd Aug 2015, 17:18

........... It is unacceptable and a crime.

A crime? Seriously? Please define the breach of criminal legislation you feel has been committed?

glad rag

23rd Aug 2015, 17:19

Tourist in usual, incisive, Tourist posts; quell surprise that it's 2015; eh?

Treble one

23rd Aug 2015, 17:20

I think one of the easiest way to negate some risk at airshows, is to put a complete ban on spectators outside the showground/airfield (within a certain distance of the airfield/show boundaries).

'Naughty Fields' are often directly under display lines, and ironically, spectators are at far more risk outside the controlled spectator areas inside the display area, due to the 170/230M lines enforced in there. As are the display pilots should they have any trouble with their mounts.

There will be some tightening up of regulations as a consequence of this tragedy. It will be interesting to see what happened to venues like Duxford/Waddington which have major roads at the end of their runways, similar to Shoreham. It would be difficult to shut such roads down for the duration of their shows?

TO

clareprop

23rd Aug 2015, 17:24

Davef68 - I'm pretty sure Strake is referring to criminal negligence. You can't hold an airshow, kill people and expect to just say 'Terribly sorry old chap...'

Albert Driver

23rd Aug 2015, 17:37

Yup, A27 goes through the display area and also Lancing College is pretty close by as well. At either end you have the towns of Shoreham and Lancing with loads of houses. It's all a bit tight in my humble opinion when 1/2 mile away is the open sea.

Well summed up.

In my view this airshow should be given the choice of moving to the sea-front or accepting restriction to more suitable, manoeuvrable aircraft if it chooses to stay where it is.

Always a Sapper

23rd Aug 2015, 17:40

........... It is unacceptable and a crime.

A crime? Seriously? Please define the breach of criminal legislation you feel has been committed?

I would have thought the 'Health & Safety at Work act 1974' for starters, unless of course all involved can prove they took all reasonable precautions to prevent.... etc etc.

Either way, people have been killed and injured. It goes without saying that thoughts are with both the family's and friends of all involved and hoping for a speedy recovery for the injured.

effortless

23rd Aug 2015, 17:41

Am I right in thinking that the Hunter was a relatively benign aircraft? When I think of the attrition rates of say the lightning and Meatbox.

ExRAFRadar

23rd Aug 2015, 17:51

A crime? Seriously? Please define the breach of criminal legislation you feel has been committed?

So 11 people die, and possibly more by simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oh wait, they were in the right place at the right time.

The Hunter was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What law you ask, I would suggest the families will be advised of that quite soon.

Are Air show organisers and the pilots involved not liable to UK Criminal Negligence laws ?

And I do realise this opens a whole can of worms.

Does anyone sign off display profiles?

Is there a concept of peer-review?

Genuinely interested not trying to be controversial

Simplythebeast

23rd Aug 2015, 17:55

All good points but surely we should let the experts do their thing and if blame is to be apportioned Im sure they will do so.
I would amagine the legal Carrion Crows will be lining up already.

dervish

23rd Aug 2015, 17:55

Perhaps a legal precedent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_M5_motorway_crash

Lots of calls for heads to roll but it was thrown out.

Too early to speculate on Shoreham, until it is known what happened.

RAFEngO74to09

23rd Aug 2015, 17:56

New video footage of the flight path prior taken from near the impact point on the A27:

Shoreham air crash: Man films Hunter hitting A27 road - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34034784)

deptrai

23rd Aug 2015, 18:08

Reducing the risk by changing the nature of the display whilst over such areas would seem an obvious avenue?

It would be worth considering. And to quote a description of the maneuver immediately before the Lviv disaster, it involved a "downward trajectory at low altitude". It's not unreasonable to discuss altitude as a contributing factor. As for those randomly passing by vs deliberately attending an airshow, I agree there is a difference, but at the same time, among the spectators killed at Lviv there were 28 children, and one could argue that they neither had an adequate grasp of risks involved nor made an independent decision to attend.

ORAC

23rd Aug 2015, 18:18

Telegraph now reporting deaths as 11 with a possibility of higher.

Pontius Navigator

23rd Aug 2015, 18:21

Unlike flying incidents that result in a coroner's inquest and an AAIB report, the nature of yesterday's tragedy means it's also likely to generate a public inquiry.

That's where the real debate will occur, and there are bound to be recommendations to the government in its conclusions.

I imagine there's also going to be a full police investigation.

It occurred to me after our previous posts, the police now declare any car crash resulting in a death as a crime scene and close the area whilst evidence is collected. I imagine the same my now be true of a crash such as this.

JointShiteFighter

23rd Aug 2015, 18:30

Tourist, I agree with your points. Banning airshows isn't the answer, IMHO.

Although we definitely should ban cricket. Nobody should have to endure that boring ****e. It's against human rights, surely? :E

JSF.

XV490

23rd Aug 2015, 18:37

Pontius,
Indeed, but I think Satellite Driver's wise words an hour or so back are worth heeding. That's to say that reckless allegations at this, or any subsequent, stage of investigations could be very risky in legal terms.
One or two posts have, in my humble opinion, already crossed the line.

frg7700

23rd Aug 2015, 18:39

It occurred to me after our previous posts, the police now declare any car crash resulting in a death as a crime scene and close the area whilst evidence is collected. I imagine the same my now be true of a crash such as this

The difference between RTAs and RTCs.

judge11

23rd Aug 2015, 18:41

Several of the released videos and photos show that the flaps were 'out' at the commencement of the loop and all points thereafter to impact.

What is the opinion of those who have operated the Hunter on flap use during a maneuver that I would have thought required as little drag as possible to achieve?

*Beagle's post found, thanks*

frg7700

23rd Aug 2015, 18:53

This issue is commented upon by Hunter mates earlier in this thread.

Onceapilot

23rd Aug 2015, 19:02

Sad to hear the mounting loss.
I am a little surprised to read "ban them" comments. However, I expect the investigation will reveal the facts and suitable steps will be taken if required. It seems to me that the costs of insurance could rise substantially. Maybe that is the self-regulating aspect of risk control in our modern times?

OAP

AYTCH

23rd Aug 2015, 19:22

Information Note following Shoreham Airshow Accident on 22nd August 2015

BADA WEB ADMIN AUGUST 23, 2015 BADA NEWS
INFORMATION NOTE

Sunday 23rd August 2015

The British Air Display Association would like to react to the tragic accident that occurred in Shoreham on Saturday August 22nd and first of all to express our support and condolences for the families and friends of all those affected.

UK has long held an exemplary air display record in terms of public safety.
Prior to Saturday’s accident, the last time a member of the public was killed at a UK airshow was in 1952, nearly 63 years ago.
This record reflects the maturity of the multiple checks and balances that UK aviation regulators and airshow practitioners have developed.
The UK has extensive rules that cover airshow organisation, display aircraft heights, speeds and manoeuvres, flying supervision and a special examination and authorisation process for display pilots with graduated steps from simple flypasts to formation and aerobatics approvals.
In this regard, we are the envy of many other nations, not just in Europe but also across the Atlantic.
The Association will not speculate on how or why this particular accident occurred.
Some people might find that frustrating but at this stage even ‘informed’ speculation, without full knowledge of the facts, is unhelpful.
This is a time when careful analysis of the facts is needed before anyone tries to draw conclusions.
It is certainly not a time for un-informed or miss-informed rule making, especially when the existing rules have worked so well for so long.
Air Accident Investigation Branch experts will establish the facts, as quickly as possible.
Then will we will know whether this was a tragic one-off accident or whether there is more that can be done.
If there are lessons from this, that will be something for all involved in airshows to consider.
Our Association will continue to encourage, promote and advance Safety and Standards in British Air Displays.
About the British Air Display Association:

The British Air Display Association was formed in 2011 to consolidate a number of separate expert communities, each with their own expertise, involved in UK airshows. The Association aims to foster the highest standards throughout UK air displays and arranges conferences before and after each summer’s flying display season a cohesive so that all those involved in UK air displays, whether military or civilian, sponsor, event organiser, aircraft owner, flying supervisor or display pilot can exchange ideas and learn together. The conferences are held in conjunction and with the support of the Civil Aviation Authority and the Military Aviation Authority. Other partners and affiliated organisations are the European Airshow Council, the Historic Aircraft Association and the Honourable Company of Air Pilots.

Genstabler

23rd Aug 2015, 19:34

A sober, balanced, rational statement from the BADA to counter the outrage.

TaranisAttack

23rd Aug 2015, 19:45

@Onceapilot (http://www.pprune.org/members/399462-onceapilot)
There are potentially people under the aircraft. They need to get a crane in before they can say for sure.

dead_pan

23rd Aug 2015, 19:59

LJ posted

I seem to recall there being a line about considering gatherings of the local populace outside the spectators enclosures and how they must be cosnidered in the display planning

All well and good for roads and houses and other such fixed infrastructure, but what about informal gatherings of spectators outside the main show ground - like those in front of the building (pub?) immediately beside this crash site? I recall one of the MiGs crashed immediately in front of one of the many adhoc external viewing areas at RIAT in '92.

dead_pan

23rd Aug 2015, 20:05

New video footage of the flight path prior taken from near the impact point on the A27:

Terrifying stuff - the Hunter seems to be lined up on the A27?

ZeBedie

23rd Aug 2015, 20:16

I guess that roll just before impact is because he's pulling max alpha, and some? So sad.

JointShiteFighter

23rd Aug 2015, 20:19

Dead_pan,

Unfortunately, it is impossible to accommodate for everyone. I agree that display line should be a set distance away from major roads, residential areas and towns, etc. to protect those who are not attending the show. However, as has been already said, those attending an air show do so at their own risk.

Tashengurt

23rd Aug 2015, 20:24

The police will be acting effectively as agents of the AAIB and coroner in this case. They will have the experience and resources to assist in gathering evidence from scene, witnesses and recorded media. They will very much be led in this by the AAIB.
When we're talking about prosecutions it's probably worth looking at the ongoing Glasgow bin lorry crash.
Don't mix up offences with crimes either. Not everything that is an offence is a crime. Drink driving being an example.

TheWizard

23rd Aug 2015, 20:37

Second, how on earth was authorisation given to a display that could risk (for whatever reason) a national road, used by public who were not attending the airshow? Outrageous really.

With reference to that comment Farnborough, Biggin Hill, Waddington, Duxford....the list is a long one so it's not unusual.

Regardless, thoughts and condolences go out to all involved.

Paracab

23rd Aug 2015, 20:44

Not everything that is an offence is a crime. Drink driving being an example.

Are you serious? It's a criminal offence, the punishment includes potential imprisonment and it leaves you with a criminal record. Certainly in the UK anyway.

Lot's of digression tonight (as per above) but today's discussion has been notably calmer. Perhaps everyone is at least coming to terms with whats happened.

I mentioned last night that the Police suggesting the casualty figures rising was likely to be a hint. What a shame that it has.

dagenham

23rd Aug 2015, 20:45

Have to say I am in a state of shock...just over for a rare visit to these shores and have a great weekend in Brighton.

Drove down the a27 on Friday night and the road around the traffic lights was very heavily signposted no stop, no parking and I seem to recall no spectating probably for this very reason..... I guess the usual it won't happen to me prevails amongst the spectators.

On Saturday afternoon was having a pint or two on the seafront outside the old ship hotel and saw Brighton police respond and drive hell for leather down the prom. BZ guys for negotiating the traffic with the speed you did without causing more problems

Have to say the drive back to Pompey today was sobering... Driving through shoreham by the south side of the airport was a moving experience with many of the display signs still out.

Thoughts are most certainly with Alan and all the spectators still battling in hospital and my prayers are with the families of those not so fortunate.

That is all I have to say......

Tashengurt

23rd Aug 2015, 20:47

Are you serious? It's a criminal offence, the punishment includes potential imprisonment and it leaves you with a criminal record. Certainly in the UK anyway.

Sorry Para. Offence yes. Crime no. You might get a criminal record but it won't show up on any crime stats and isn't recorded as a crime. Anyway, that takes us away from the point I was making. There are many prosecuting agencies in the U.K. It's not always about criminal behaviour.
(15 year constable)

Basil

23rd Aug 2015, 20:50

Paracab

23rd Aug 2015, 21:02

Tashengurt,

Fair enough, crossed wires I think. Criminal offence rather than motoring offence. However, back to the main topic.

Hawk98

23rd Aug 2015, 21:44

I was at Bournemouth today, watching the Reds from the west side of Bournemouth pier (where there is no exclusion zone on the water, unlike the other side of the pier) and during one of the synchro pair displays the Hawk travelling from east to west passed his team mate and did a fairly wide roll out, coming low over the pier and losing a fair bit of altitude, only recovering at an altitude similar to the height of some of the yacht masts (10s of feet high and very close) and for a brief moment I feared the worst. Just shows how easily these accidents can happen to the best of the best.

Tom

Treble one

23rd Aug 2015, 21:45

I'm not seeking to ban people from their own gardens, but if you've been to an airshow recently you will no doubt have seen people watching from just outside the show gates, or in adjacent fields.

Indeed some of the shocking video footage from this incident has been provided by people doing just that (from very close to or on the A27 in some instances).

You are in far more danger watching shows from such vantage points and proverbial 'naughty Fields' under the display line on many occasions, than you are inside the official showground, where distance rules separate you from the display lines for your own safety?

Tankertrashnav

23rd Aug 2015, 21:52

As a non-pilot, unless you count 60 odd hours on Cessnas, and I dont, I feel a little diffident about asking this question on this thread.

However, I find it difficult to follow some of the arguments on this accident, as I did on the recent Gnat accident, because of my lack of knowledge on certain terminology which is obvious familar to experienced pilots, particularly with FJ experience. I would very much like to know what "pulling to (or through) the buffet" means, as well as "pulling max alpha". If anyone would care to take the time to explain these terms in relatively simple language I'd be grateful. This could be done by PM if you prefer not to clog up the thread.

Thanks a lot.

TTN

dead_pan

23rd Aug 2015, 22:02

Hawk98 posted:

Just shows how easily these accidents can happen to the best of the best.

Was there yesterday and one of the singletons was slightly over-zealous when lining up for an opposition maneouvre, having to turn back away from the beach and around the pier (not sure how far up/down the beach the A-axis officially extends). Also, the Reds gypo breached the A-axis during their display on the Saturday at RIAT, much to the consternation of experienced spectators. As you said...

Courtney Mil

23rd Aug 2015, 22:23

I've resisted posting on this thread for as long as I can. Once again there has been a disaster, a crash, people have died. And once again dozens of experts who have been members here for many years and that have found the need to contribute, maybe, a handful of posts over those years, suddenly pitch up with a whole wealth of knowledge and opinion. You are, of course, very welcome.

I have just spent the last hour catching up on this afternoon's posts here and, as usual in these circumstances, too many people have crawled out of the woodwork to draw conclusions (and, worse, express them in public) and translate those opinions into table-thumping demands to ban displays, question the quals, currency and capability of display pilots, cite legal precedent, conduct their own risk assessment of the site and its suitability. Well done, no argument with your reason.

But before you all sound off, why not wait a few days to consider the facts of this particular case, show some respect for those involved (and that does mean just adding a statement of respect to those affected) and wait a short while for, at very least, a preliminary statement from the AAIB and the other services involved.

At the moment, this is about a disastrous air accident. If you really want to start discussing the future of air shows, displays and the manoeuvres authorised, the safety regulations, suitability of sites, the litigation aspects and the quals and supervision of the pilots, why don't you pipe up with your views and start threads about these issues? Why do you need to wait until such a tragic moment to jump on your high horses and drag the thread away from this, one accident to your (in some cases, clearly, long-held) personal soap-boxes about air displays - or have you simply suddenly come to these conclusion?

Last point. Whoever's comment it was about display pilots regularly missing or ignoring gates, if you know that for a fact, you should have acted on it years ago. If you don't know it for a fact, don't state it in public as if it is.

Out.

Mach Two

23rd Aug 2015, 22:32

Courtney mil, well said. I am one of those fairly long-standing members and I don't post that often, but I agree with your point about using this thread to bang the drum about related issues. It is hard to define acceptable thread drift but I do agree that a number of lurkers here are turning this into an anti-air show rant.

If you have strong feelings about displays, start a thread about your issue. This one is not the right place for it.

MSOCS

23rd Aug 2015, 22:40

I sincerely hope the death toll for this totally tragic situation doesn't increase beyond what's been reported.

That includes poor Andy too, who didn't get out of bed on the day in question intending for it to turn out the way it so unfortunately did. That simple yet irrevocable fact passes too many idiots by as they rush to board the outrage bus. Any number of events could have led up to this crash and it's for the AAIB to determine in time.

Thoughts and condolences :(

PS - CM you absolutely nailed it chap, whilst I was also posting.

NutLoose

23rd Aug 2015, 23:10

And so did you.. Well said.

RRAAMJET

24th Aug 2015, 00:54

What MSOCS said, in spades. Particularly ref Andy, whom I remember hosting at BoBD outside my Sqn many years ago at the visiting aircrew tent.

Similar 'outrage' and knee jerk followed the Reno crash here in USA.

For the experienced display gurus here (not me): question. That video released from the road seemed to show a very 'squashed' quarter-clover, much less than 90. The camera seemed to be much more on the axis of the maneuver than the telephoto distance vid. Opinions? The reason I ask is that I recall the Abingdon accident was partly caused by maneuvering at the top of the vertical to adjust alignment, bleeding energy below sufficient for the correct pitch rate? Just a thought, and trying to get back to discussion of the circumstances, rather than future legislating.

Condolences to all.

JointShiteFighter

24th Aug 2015, 01:55

Courtney: :D

XV490

24th Aug 2015, 05:33

This morning's papers are, inevitably, looking for reasons for the crash - and reasons to curtail, or even ban, airshows.

Let us all remember that this forum is seen as a useful source of information by journalists, and post accordingly - being mindful of falling foul of legal process (and complicated online defamation laws).

Several comments in yesterday's papers' later online editions could only, as far as I can make out, have come from PPRuNe.

Lima Juliet

24th Aug 2015, 06:31

XV490

I have followed this thread from the very start and I haven't seen anything that could be interpreted as defamatory. No one has been named outright for causing the accident and I believe that the discussion about the venue's suitability and CAA regulations has been pretty fair. What's your beef old chum?

Oh, and this tragic accident has been discussed on just about every aviation related forum in the world - which is quite understandable. I would far sooner see some open opinion in these types of fora than some of the so called experts that are dragged in for a TV/Radio news 'voxpop'!

It is a free country where opinion and open discussion is allowed - something that the aircraft and the pilot involved served in HMforces to protect over many years. I know that he has contributed to other aviation fora in the past to offer his opinion on matters (maybe not so significant as this). That's how the human race learns...through discussion. It's one of our unique capabilities on the planet! :ok:

LJ

JFZ90

24th Aug 2015, 06:36

what a terrible incident.

just a simple observation is that alot of very experienced professional pilots have misjudged loops in the past with similar outcomes or close shaves.

perhaps, if this is shown to be a misjudgement, one option is to reconsider the conditions for moves like this that are clearly at high risk of misjudgement by even the best.

of course at this stage it is too early to rule out other causes.

clareprop

24th Aug 2015, 06:37

The main fact Courtney, is that people uninvolved with the airshow have been killed by a sport/hobby/passion we and others like us enjoy. In my humble opinion, that is not right.

XV490

24th Aug 2015, 06:45

Leon,

I am only suggesting caution because the words 'crime' and 'criminal' have appeared on this thread - which could be seen as accusatory by implication, even without naming names.

Online libel laws are complicated and, of course, differ from country to country. This site's mods are doubtless more au fait with them than I am, but I still reckon it's worth reminding folks to be careful.

That said, I believe that so soon after this tragic event - and with the pilot gravely ill in hospital - using the words above is, at best, insensitive and, at worst, extremely offensive.

A newspaper editor would think twice about publishing a letter containing such views - for fear of falling foul of clearly defined British libel laws. Later on, depending on how legal processes pan out in investigating this tragedy, it may be that such discussion would constitute contempt of court.

I don't have a beef, 'chum' - that's just the way it is.

Fluffy Bunny

24th Aug 2015, 07:16

This topic is staying fairly well reasoned and reasonable. There is another thread on the same topic in the general rumour section, which, well, errr, isn't. It's also been heavily moderated and doesn't show or read particularly well as tempers have flared and posts that have started off reasonably have turned into personal rants and name calling.

ORAC

24th Aug 2015, 07:25

Police now reporting death toll could be up to 20.

SilsoeSid

24th Aug 2015, 07:35

Hindsight: Perhaps the future of air displays will lie in the name, 'Shoreham by Sea'.

Springing to mind, Bournemouth, Dawlish, Plymouth, W-S-M, Clacton, Southend on Sea, in fact any of the coastal resorts around the country could be future locations.
As an aside, I would have thought that access would be generally be better for 'resorts' than that of the normal airfield sites, usually accessed by country roads.

RIP, a sad day :(

Albert Driver

24th Aug 2015, 08:05

Excellent airshow at Bournemouth seafront yesterday.
Great action, many good viewpoints on the cliffs or the beach, great for kids, spirited displays, instant air-sea rescue on hand if necessary without having to negotiate roads/obstacles. Vast crowd, good trade. high degree of safety for spectators. RN presence adds interest.

What is not to like about this kind of airshow where the option is available?

sidewayspeak

24th Aug 2015, 08:32

Since the coast is never more than 70 miles away from anywhere in the UK, it would make sense to have airshows with aerobatic displays over the sea. Definitive flight-line along the beach, would limit any future fatalities to the display pilots.

Tankertrashnav

24th Aug 2015, 08:44

orca, thanks a lot for your PM with a succinct explanation of pulling to the buffet, max alpha etc in reponse to my request. Much appreciated!

OUAQUKGF Ops

24th Aug 2015, 08:49

sharpend

24th Aug 2015, 08:55

VinRouge

24th Aug 2015, 08:57

As a complete layman can I ask if any of you who are fast jet display pilots can tell me if your sequences are flown with frequent references to the altimeter or is it more a matter of timing and Mark One Eyeball. Would you expect to use airfield QFE or regional QNH? Would a fairly rapid drop in pressure be of any relevance?
Each manoeuvre will have a minimum entry height and speed. Some manoeuvres will have critical no go below heights , for example loops and Cubans will have a minimum height to complete the manoeuvre at the top. If you don't have the height, you abort the manoeuvre. Height awareness is critical and a major point when expecting to receive display clearance.

A significant pressure drop would have to be very significant, to the extent it is not a credible explaination imho.

sharpend

24th Aug 2015, 09:09

Trim Stab

24th Aug 2015, 09:21

4. Yes, there is always a risk, but should we ban all risks? If so, we must ban all flying over built-up areas, so close most airports, incl LHR, Gatwick, Manchester etc. A step further would be to ban all transport including horse riding. Electricity can also be dangerous, so let's ban that too. Patently, those suggestions are ridiculous.

Sharpend - I suggest you read Satellite Driver's excellent post 121.

He points out very succinctly (and reiterated by others on this thread) that this accident was different in that people have been killed who had no connection with the airshow and who were therefore not deriving any benefit or pleasure from it.

Genstabler

24th Aug 2015, 09:37

I have difficulty getting my head around the legalistic differentiation being expressed between the spectators and the passers by. If some of those killed were actually air show spectators instead of passers by, is their loss less tragic, worthy of sympathy, consideration or of compensation? Deaths are deaths.

sharpend

24th Aug 2015, 09:54

Sharpend - I suggest you read Satellite Driver's excellent post 121.

He points out very succinctly (and reiterated by others on this thread) that this accident was different in that people have been killed who had no connection with the airshow and who were therefore not deriving any benefit or pleasure from it.

I agree with most of what Satellite Driver has written. Yes, the spectators are at an airshow by choice; the general public going about there normal day-to-day business are not. But my point was that there is risk in everything, but do we ban everything? I take the point about innocents being killed, but the average motorway pile-up normally takes out many innocent drivers. Incidently, motorway pile-ups are far more frequent than airshow disasters. We just have to weigh up the risks; the benefits versus the danger. Flying itself is dangerous, but less dangerous that driving a motorcar, so I personally take that risk and fly my aeroplane. However, my flying might result in an innocent being injured or worse. That applies to all forms of transport, so do we ban everything?

charliegolf

24th Aug 2015, 09:58

However, my flying might result in an innocent being injured or worse. That applies to all forms of transport, so do we ban everything?

When you fly your aeroplane, the risk to passers by is mitigated somewhat by the 500 foot and land clear rules.

CG (no bans please, just common sense)

strake

24th Aug 2015, 10:05

Genstabler - of course they aren't any less tragic but those taking part and attending a show know the potential risks. Those driving along a public road going about their business have other risks but being injured or killed by a display aircraft being flown for fun/sport/hobby etc should not be one of them. One can't just say 'Oh well, anything in life is a risk, so there you are, very sad.' There has to be responsibility for what would appear to be anything up to twenty deaths of people completely uninvolved. And that viewpoint doesn't mean I think airshows should be banned.

sharpend

24th Aug 2015, 10:12

When you fly your aeroplane, the risk to passers by is mitigated somewhat by the 500 foot and land clear rules.

CG (no bans please, just common sense)

Yes, I agree. But the risk to bystanders at airshows is mitigated by the air display rules. If my engine fails I have little choice in where I land. Personally I do not fly over large populated areas and always try to have a suitable field in view, but that is not always possible. Moreover, when flying formation, a wingman might take off my wing, thus my aeroplane crashes where luck takes it. That might be on an isolated farmhouse.

This tragic incident will be analysed by the CAA and the rules will be reviewed. But not until all the facts are known. Yes, let us hope for common sense.

In the meantime, let's just have a thought for those killed and injured.

Albert Driver

24th Aug 2015, 10:13

I have been particularly disappointed to hear comments from many regarding this tragedy, particularly from those who profess to know better. At present, very few facts are known and best we wait until all the facts are known and not make knee-jerk comments. However, those who suggest that all manoeuvres should be over the sea (BBC Today programme suggested this today) should ponder on these facts.

1. If the Shoreham disaster was the only one in over 60 years where members of the public were injured, then this is not a high risk.
2. Many airshows raise huge amounts of money for charity, as well as providing much pleasure to millions.
3. Most airshows, including the biggest (RIAT) are not near the sea.
4. Yes, there is always a risk, but should we ban all risks? If so, we must ban all flying over built-up areas, so close most airports, incl LHR, Gatwick, Manchester etc. A step further would be to ban all transport including horse riding. Electricity can also be dangerous, so let's ban that too. Patently, those suggestions are ridiculous.

1. It is not the number of casualties in 60 years that is the concern but the increasing numbers of airshow near-misses recently which could have resulted in a major disaster. Therefore it is right to look at what could be improved.
2. Seaside airshows also raise money for charity as well as lifting the whole local economy, and provide the space for a greater number of spectators. The whole of Bournemouth massively benefits from its four-day Air Festival.
3. I don't believe RIAT etc to be threatened. Quite the reverse. As more airshows move to the sea front there is a greater need for the remainder to provide good static displays. The point is Shoreham is a difficult airfield which has the option of moving its airshow to the adjacent sea front.
4. No-one wants to ban, only to eliminate unnecessary risk while still providing a good show.

bbrown1664

24th Aug 2015, 10:25

Has anyone looked at the maps etc and considered this?

The aerobatic bit was carried out over the open land to the north of the airfield (low risk).
On exiting the move there is obviously a problem and he is trying to make it across the A27 to the clear ground to the West of the airfield.

Whatever went wrong though, due to the kink in the A27 at the point of impact, meant he was over the top of the road for a short period of time rather than crossing it at 90 degrees.

Unfortunately cars were queuing at the traffic lights at that time. The Vauxhall helicopter incident two years ago could have been so similar to this had the traffic lights been green instead of red.
RIP to those who were caught up.

Exnomad

24th Aug 2015, 10:31

Seaside airshows have one major snag for the organisers. Revenue.
You can have a paid enclosure on the beach, but other specators can get a fairly good show for free. There is always a public road close by.
I have cheated at Shoreham in the past. You can get a pretty good view from the hill opposite if you have reasonable eyesight.

Finningley Boy

24th Aug 2015, 10:34

Speaking as a non-flyer, I have to agree with Albert's comment about Shoreham, the airfield is small, I may be correct in my understanding that the Red Arrows don't display at Shoreham due to the proximity of various close by land marks, there is a large church on high ground not too far from the airfield boundary and the dual carriage-way flyover also within the confines of space which if transferred to somewhere like Waddington or Fairford, would fit well within the airfield boundary. Indeed, the A27 at Shoreham is probably no further from the runway than the primeter at most large airfields, such as the afore mentioned.

FB:)

overstress

24th Aug 2015, 10:42

On exiting the move there is obviously a problem and he is trying to make it across the A27 to the clear ground to the West of the airfield.

More likely to have been preoccupied with the vertical dimension.

Genstabler

24th Aug 2015, 10:47

Strake
I'm sorry but your argument does not hold water. You, and Satelite Driver, are trying to define something which in undefinable. And what is the point? All deaths resulting from air shows are regrettable. There has to be responsibility for all such deaths, whether of spectators or of passers by. How would you define a spectator? Clearly those who paid to go in. How about those watching from their own properties or from surrounding land, like Exnomad? How about passers by who pulled over into a lay-by to watch the display?
Deaths are deaths. There is no useful purpose in trying to define their quality. Indeed it is rather obscene to try and do so.

charliegolf

24th Aug 2015, 10:55

Deaths are deaths. There is no useful purpose in trying to define their quality.

Agreed.

But some posters are making the point that display-goers have ACCEPTED the risk, however small, associated with the ticket purchase; commuters and cyclists HAVE NOT. Posters who do not want blanket bans are suggesting that the latter groups' risks are mitigated by some means. Nothing obscene in that.

CG

Fluffy Bunny

24th Aug 2015, 10:59

The Reds last displayed at Shoreham in 2013. What has changed since then I don't know. But there may well be administrative issues rather than safety concerns.

soddim

24th Aug 2015, 11:04

The way in which this thread has drifted and the untimely and poorly thought out arguments posted reminds me of why I now rarely use this forum. There seems to be a number of posters here who object to any risk however miniscule of tragedy befalling anyone unconnected with the activity that led to the event. All I want to say to them is stay as far away from other people as you can because humans engage in all sorts of activities that could possibly be hazardous to your health like breathing in a crowded tube train when carrying a virus, like driving on the same road as you, like flying in a big passenger jet that might crash on you. The list is endless and the hazards obvious however great care is usually taken to avoid harming you and I am sure the recent tragedy was no exception but if there are any lessons to improve your safety I am sure they will be applied.
If you have missed it, I suggest you read post #189.

Above The Clouds

24th Aug 2015, 11:10

Courtney Mil
I've resisted posting on this thread for as long as I can. Once again there has been a disaster, a crash, people have died. And once again dozens of experts who have been members here for many years and that have found the need to contribute, maybe, a handful of posts over those years, suddenly pitch up with a whole wealth of knowledge and opinion. You are, of course, very welcome.

I have just spent the last hour catching up on this afternoon's posts here and, as usual in these circumstances, too many people have crawled out of the woodwork to draw conclusions (and, worse, express them in public) and translate those opinions into table-thumping demands to ban displays, question the quals, currency and capability of display pilots, cite legal precedent, conduct their own risk assessment of the site and its suitability. Well done, no argument with your reason.

But before you all sound off, why not wait a few days to consider the facts of this particular case, show some respect for those involved (and that does mean just adding a statement of respect to those affected) and wait a short while for, at very least, a preliminary statement from the AAIB and the other services involved.

At the moment, this is about a disastrous air accident. If you really want to start discussing the future of air shows, displays and the manoeuvres authorised, the safety regulations, suitability of sites, the litigation aspects and the quals and supervision of the pilots, why don't you pipe up with your views and start threads about these issues? Why do you need to wait until such a tragic moment to jump on your high horses and drag the thread away from this, one accident to your (in some cases, clearly, long-held) personal soap-boxes about air displays - or have you simply suddenly come to these conclusion?

Last point. Whoever's comment it was about display pilots regularly missing or ignoring gates, if you know that for a fact, you should have acted on it years ago. If you don't know it for a fact, don't state it in public as if it is.

Out.

For those who didn't read it the first time.

clareprop

24th Aug 2015, 11:24

Above the Clouds - So what?

This is a public forum for discussion not some sort of hallowed hall where contributors have to comment in whispers. There are people, very angry people out there today who have lost relatives, who were going to work or play, as a result of this incident. Who cares whether it was pilot error? Who cares if the aircraft developed a fault? All that matters to them is that they have lost loved ones who had nothing to do with this display and if people on here think that will be ignored as just 'one of those risks in life' or it can't be talked about, critisised or otherwise discussed, then they have another think coming as the next few days will show.

SilsoeSid

24th Aug 2015, 11:44

Darren Sharp, described as "expert ppl pilot" interviewed on BBC news, unbelievable comments :eek:

mary meagher

24th Aug 2015, 11:46

Perhaps somebody can remember the year at Edgehill when we celebrated 50 years of military operation, Wellington bombers, and of course the secret testing of the Whittle jet.

We also installed a memorial stone at the entrance....which has probably been moved. And because I was the pilot with the most power hours, qualifications and contacts, the gliding club asked me to organise a small air display. A lot of people turned up, far more than we ever expected, including a lot of RAF brass, all with white hair and years of experience.

I did indeed organise a very small airshow, which included a spot on time flypast of early jets by the RAF, various interesting visitors, a very good announcer, and a group calling itself the British Confederate Air Force which behaved eccentrically to say the least. There was a rogue pilot who did a display of very very slow aerobatics right over the crowd. The old RAF officers were harrumphing in disapproval. How we got through that day without disaster, I will never know, only luck, really.

I am very happy to read that the British Air Display Association was formed in 2011, only wish they had been there for me that long time ago to give expert advice and oversight.

EXNOMAD in his post says the beach is a very good place for an airshow, only trouble is it doesn't make money because you can't charge for tickets.

Finningley Boy

24th Aug 2015, 11:55

09.11 - Red Arrows 'refused to perform at Shoreham'
Reports from this morning suggest the RAF’s famous Red Arrows display team ruled the danger level was too high to perform their full stunt programme at Shoreham.
A former airshow promoter who has worked with the Red Arrows and helped organise airshows around Britain told the Mirror:
Quote
I have friends involved in the organisation of Shoreham Air Show and have been there several times.
"The Red Arrows refuse to display there as they say the surrounding area is far too dangerous and could lead to a major accident.
"All they will do at Shoreham is a straight fly-past with red, white and blue smoke coming out the back of the jets.
"They have refused point blank to do an acrobatic display. They say there is no fall-out zone and any accident would be a disaster there.
"There is nowhere for them to put a plane down without killing someone.
"Every year the organisers apply for a Red Arrows display but they turn them down."

I've just lifted this comment from another web. As I said in my previous post, the Red Arrows will not fly theIr full display at Shoreham, the area is too built up and the airfield too confined and small.

FB

Fluffy Bunny

24th Aug 2015, 12:04

Yes, that is a copy and paste from the Daily Mirror.
Which in turn was collated from the other thread on these forums and an airshow and photography/spotters forum. Now if Red 10 was to be quoted as such or perhaps a previous incumbent of the post, I'd take it as gen. But certainly not from the rumour-mongering of a redtop paper and armchair experts forum.

Clareprop. These forums are seen as a "source" of "expert" advice for the press. You only have to look back a year or so to the papers to find a directly copied and pasted article from PPrune's trolly dolly section about who were their best and worst celeb clientelle.
So naturally many here prescribe caution, when expressing their views.

HAS59

24th Aug 2015, 12:12

At times like this it is often more important for people to be able to say something - rather than to be listened to. A lot of anger can be dissipated just by typing a few words. Don't read too much into it ...

Hempy

24th Aug 2015, 12:14

I have to say, Fluffy Bunny is entirely correct. I know for a fact that I have been quoted verbatim in the press for what I've had to say here on PPRuNe. Fortunately what I said on that occasion was accurate...can you all say the same?

Captain Kirk

24th Aug 2015, 12:18

It is very naive to imagine that an issue of this gravity would not be discussed, or that the topic would not expand to embrace allied aspects, such as general considerations of risk.

And (IMHO) is it ridiculous to dismiss this tragedy on the basis that it hasn't happened for a long time, or that there are other risks in the world - it HAS happened and I cannot imagine that government or public will accept anything less that an assessment to see if the risk of it happening again cannot be sensibly reduced further. The other risks in this world are completely irrelevant - our world is generally safe because we bear down upon what are deemed to be unacceptable risks one at a time, not ignore them because we might have a car crash.

As for waiting for the facts. A complete video of the accident sequence is available as well as a plethora of images - many an accident enquiry has been conducted in its entirety without any such material to draw upon. Yes, there will be other details to consider, but the basic physics of why this ac came into contact with the ground can be deduced by those with adequate experience.

And no, it didn't 'fall out of the sky because it wasn't going fast enough to pull out of a loop' as I keep reading in the media.

Contributory and causal factors will take longer to establish, as will a detailed assessment of the risk to third parties. The AAIB report will typically take 6 months to a year. Should everyone keep silent until then, and NOT discuss an incident that is very likely to have profound consequences for air activities that we all have an interest in?!

XV490

24th Aug 2015, 12:35

Sid

I too saw that unbelievable BBC interview. It just goes to show the media are chasing their own tails in a bid to gather comments from all and sundry.

Utter bulls**t

TaranisAttack

24th Aug 2015, 12:42

@Exnomad
There are also a lot more people at the Bournemouth air show, around 1.4m over the 3/4 days. From what the announcer said it was around 500k on Saturday. They were talking about cutting Vulcan one day to try to keep crowd levels down. In terms of revenue Shoreham won't be getting any revenue if it's forced to close!

The risks are much higher too though. Those people are all lined up in parallel with the display line, and densely packed. Were that Hunter to have done that pancake landing and explosion on Bournemouth beach it would have made a huge mess. It's also fairly slow getting ambulances along the seafront due to the crowds.

@charliegolf
They did accept the higher risk of using the road, and of travelling past an airport.

@Fluffy Bunny
The Red were flying from Exeter and doing 2 displays so it might have been too far.

clareprop

24th Aug 2015, 12:48

Clareprop. These forums are seen as a "source" of "expert" advice for the press....
.....So naturally many here prescribe caution, when expressing their views.
I fail to see the importance. So what if they copy it? Most people here don't take any notice of comments so is it really thought that the great public at large will fret over their cornflakes about something somebody wrote on PPRuNe?

212man

24th Aug 2015, 12:56

Former British Airways pilot Terry Tozer has suggested that if the Hawker Hunter fighter jet was just 500ft higher, it would have had more room to recover in time.

Mr Tozer said: "From what I can see, it looks like the pilot ran out of height.

No sh1t Sherlock!

Above The Clouds

24th Aug 2015, 13:16

It is always good to see double standards at work, one minute you are promoting low flying.

clareprop

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Liverpool
Age: 40
Posts: 141
In the garden at Mickfield and hear another Apache approaching - hark, sounds slightly different but there it is at about 1000ft. Definitely sounds different and louder. At that moment, Merlin passes behind the village/trees 100 metres from me at nothing'ish feet. Excellent example of my tax pounds at work :ok:

clareprop
Living in a village almost bang-on 10 miles NE of the extended centreline for 05/23 at Wattisham, I and my neighbours have been quite disappointed with the excessive altitude flown by Apaches based there. Fortunately, there have been two encouraging instances recently. A late evening high-speed, low track down 23 (by the poplar trees which border the western edge of the village - just so you know) by an AH-1 and a very low, pass at speed by what appeared to be a CH-47 (rare visitor here) heading west across the village (by the Church).
Do carry on...

Bollotom

24th Aug 2015, 13:17

Tragic event and shock will sometimes overrule thought processes. Even now the BBC are suggesting off shore displays. But as the Hunter came down on a road you really only have to look at Biggin, Duxford, Farnborough, Fairford and probably others where a roadway is close to the boundary fence. It's going to be a difficult call for display directors but as already said perhaps some calming of aerobatic manoeuvres, maybe a "Hard deck" to set a minimum level at which loops may be commenced with an added safety factor. Additionally, I wonder how much, if any, impact this will have on The Red Arrows.
Good new is that Clacton will go ahead, though this is mainly over the sea.
Pilot is hanging in there so hoping for a good recovery. :cool:

Peter Carter

24th Aug 2015, 13:51

Given that air displays at airfields are usually based on the main runway (easier to adjust your sequence and for a fast reference), I suggest that it is largely out the pilot's control where the aircraft ends up following a failure (technical or manoeuvre). It is the Display Authority who should decide the direction, safety areas or even if the venue is suitable at all. For example, I was involved in the BOI into the Mig29 midair at Fairford a few years ago. As an academic exercise, I overlaid the crash positions on an airfield map of Farnborough, using the runway as a common reference. The casualty result would have been entirely different.

lmgaylard

24th Aug 2015, 14:14

Taken from the CAA website;

- Our thoughts remain with all of those affected by this tragedy
- CAA review of air shows already commenced
- New restrictions now in place for future air shows
- Temporary measures introduced to give authorities time for thorough review

The thoughts of everyone at the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) remain with all of those affected by the tragic accident at the Shoreham Air Show on Saturday 22 August.

Following the accident we immediately began an urgent review and have, today, announced a series of immediate restrictions and changes to UK civil air displays.

The CAA has announced the following:

• As a precaution, on Saturday 22 August we took steps to ensure no further flights were made by Hawker Hunter aircraft - this temporary restriction remains in place.

• Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.

• The CAA will conduct additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays to establish if additional measures should be introduced.

• We commenced a full review of civil air display safety yesterday and held an initial meeting this morning.

The safety standards that must be met by all major civil air displays in the UK are among the very highest in the world and are regularly reviewed. All air display arrangements, including the pilots and aircraft, must meet rigorous safety requirements. Individual display pilots are only granted approval following a thorough test of their abilities.

The CAA will continue to offer every assistance to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch as it seeks to establish the cause of the accident. The CAA will also act promptly in response to any emerging indications from the AAIB’s investigation.

Further details will be provided in the coming days and we will continue to work with the industry to ensure the most appropriate action is taken as a result of this review.

Cows getting bigger

24th Aug 2015, 14:23

I think it fair to say that the CAA actions are far more wide ranging than just restricting vintage jets - additional risk assessments on all future civil air displays and a full review of civil air display safety.

jas24zzk

24th Aug 2015, 14:25

Just 'loving' the negative comments about these 'old' jets just flying, let alone putting on handling displays.

Whats the average fatigue age of a mil jet that has gone onto a civilian display life? 3-4,000 hours?

Whats the fatigue life of the last airliner you happily boarded? 10,000, 15,000?

And please don't give me the rubbish of maintenance standard differences.

These old mil jets are LOVED, not worked. They were maintained to the highest standards when they were working, and most, if not all are maintained to a higher standard in their after service life.

You can regulate all you like, but nature will do its thing regardless of your piece of dead tree.