AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could something mechanical have occurred that distracted him which wasn't picked up on the examination of the aircraft wreckage. After all it was very badly damaged in several areas and therefore could have masked a problem which the AAIB haven't noticed as they have presumed it was accident damage rather than pre-accident damage.
Could there have been an ASI or altimeter problem after all I didn't find any mention of them asking the other pilot, or AH if they had experienced any issues with the aircraft and if so, had they reported them verbally or in writing to the maintenance company.
I also note that the existing maintenance company queried with the CAA the maintenance of the aircraft from the previous company. Do they not get all the records(log books/maintenance records) when the aircraft is transferred from one company to another.
Could there have been an ASI or altimeter problem after all I didn't find any mention of them asking the other pilot, or AH if they had experienced any issues with the aircraft and if so, had they reported them verbally or in writing to the maintenance company.
I also note that the existing maintenance company queried with the CAA the maintenance of the aircraft from the previous company. Do they not get all the records(log books/maintenance records) when the aircraft is transferred from one company to another.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: 57 North
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that is true Hebog, and if it were the case that some technical issue arose at the beginning of a low level aerobatic manouever then surely, without question, the only thing is to abandon the manouever.
We're not talking about some 'Galloping Ghost' type failure that blacked out the pilot.
Perhaps an on-the-ball FDD might have spotted it going wrong and called 'Display end' before the outcome became inevitable. Perhaps not.
So, from the information available to me:
We're not talking about some 'Galloping Ghost' type failure that blacked out the pilot.
Perhaps an on-the-ball FDD might have spotted it going wrong and called 'Display end' before the outcome became inevitable. Perhaps not.
So, from the information available to me:
Hebog. In an endeavour to prevent a high-performance aircraft from trying to fly the second half of a loop without enough sky below it, you ensure that, before committing, you achieve your gate parameters. Make the gate - you've enough sky; don't make the gate - not enough sky. Really really simple, and black & white. Absolute basics to any display pilot.
A whole plethora of reasons why AH didn't make the gate - did they not find a mobile, perhaps he was texting! Of course he wasn't, but for whatever the reason on the way up he failed to make the gate, but that was not why he crashed. Approaching apex you have one job that shoots to the top of the queue. Ignore that job or worse, get it wrong, and the outcome is inevitable.
Mentioned before but perhaps akin to DH; land or GA. Lots of reasons why I may get distracted, but my job is to ensure that I don't and hence make the correct, timely, black/white call every time!
A whole plethora of reasons why AH didn't make the gate - did they not find a mobile, perhaps he was texting! Of course he wasn't, but for whatever the reason on the way up he failed to make the gate, but that was not why he crashed. Approaching apex you have one job that shoots to the top of the queue. Ignore that job or worse, get it wrong, and the outcome is inevitable.
Mentioned before but perhaps akin to DH; land or GA. Lots of reasons why I may get distracted, but my job is to ensure that I don't and hence make the correct, timely, black/white call every time!
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If something occured that affected the control of the aircraft or presented a distraction, the correct course of action would be to establish the aircraft in level flight and abandon the display. Misreading instruments in clear VMC flight should not be sufficient to cause an accident.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders why the bent loop as a plan? A 90/180/270/360 roll on the way up is not uncommon, but this seemed to be a line adjustment made 'at the last minute'.
I know this is not an analysis directly related to the 'Why' of the crash, but to others with local display experience, is there a reason why the arrival was not along the axis and a simple loop made to open the display? I know the arrival track was from NE, but it would not be a long deviation to align with the axis from 5nm out. Are there restrictions?
I know this is not an analysis directly related to the 'Why' of the crash, but to others with local display experience, is there a reason why the arrival was not along the axis and a simple loop made to open the display? I know the arrival track was from NE, but it would not be a long deviation to align with the axis from 5nm out. Are there restrictions?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot's notes clearly show that this was a pre-planned manoeuvre. Although it is not specifically covered in the AAIB report, the bent loop seems to have been designed to maintain alignment as close as possible to the display line and avoid no fly and restricted areas around the airfield.
The intended exit track was only supposed to be 20° different from the entry. The actual exit track was at 60° variance from the entry track. The extra 40° of turn is unlikely to have directly contributed to the accident, but could be enough to disorientate a pilot when chosen markers and identifying points are not in the position they are expected to be.
The momentary confusion as the brain struggles to catch up and realign where you think you are, with where you actually are, would certainly be an unecessary distraction when other things are not going according to plan, such as low airspeed and not enough height to pull through a loop.
The intended exit track was only supposed to be 20° different from the entry. The actual exit track was at 60° variance from the entry track. The extra 40° of turn is unlikely to have directly contributed to the accident, but could be enough to disorientate a pilot when chosen markers and identifying points are not in the position they are expected to be.
The momentary confusion as the brain struggles to catch up and realign where you think you are, with where you actually are, would certainly be an unecessary distraction when other things are not going according to plan, such as low airspeed and not enough height to pull through a loop.
Agree with H Peacock.
Also, AH was not properly skilful or current to carry out a low level display in a Fast Jet on which he had a total of 40 - odd hours. The basic cause of this almost inevitable crash must be the sloppy CAA regulations that allowed him to have a Hunter Display Authority after demonstrating his skills on a completely different aircraft type.
Also, AH was not properly skilful or current to carry out a low level display in a Fast Jet on which he had a total of 40 - odd hours. The basic cause of this almost inevitable crash must be the sloppy CAA regulations that allowed him to have a Hunter Display Authority after demonstrating his skills on a completely different aircraft type.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hunter Display Authority after demonstrating his skills on a completely different aircraft type.
Not necessarily a direct cause, perhaps contributory. But, even in the commercial aviation world an IR is type/class specific. i.e. an IR gained in an MPA jet is not valid for a single crew piston. Yet for a DA...................? Same organisation with very different rules & regs!!! Yet which is the more critical?
Not necessarily a direct cause, perhaps contributory. But, even in the commercial aviation world an IR is type/class specific. i.e. an IR gained in an MPA jet is not valid for a single crew piston. Yet for a DA...................? Same organisation with very different rules & regs!!! Yet which is the more critical?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with H Peacock.
Also, AH was not properly skilful or current to carry out a low level display in a Fast Jet on which he had a total of 40 - odd hours. The basic cause of this almost inevitable crash must be the sloppy CAA regulations that allowed him to have a Hunter Display Authority after demonstrating his skills on a completely different aircraft type.
Also, AH was not properly skilful or current to carry out a low level display in a Fast Jet on which he had a total of 40 - odd hours. The basic cause of this almost inevitable crash must be the sloppy CAA regulations that allowed him to have a Hunter Display Authority after demonstrating his skills on a completely different aircraft type.
The cause is his failure to safely complete the planned manoeuvre. Other causes include the owner putting him in it in the first place despite his relative inexperience in Hunters.
You are both correct but as I've said many times before, AH would never have been allowed to display a Hunter with such low hours if he were still in the RAF. The CAA should have set specific rules ages ago with regard to currency and minimum experience requirements.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arfur: I can think of cost, (but is that in CAA's remit?) but who at CAA would have the experience to start with a clean sheet of paper and devise suitable rules/regs for a DA? Surely, if they have no experience they should go to those that have and consult: i.e. ask RAF what their criteria are and consider. They might be slightly more lenient, but.... What are the RAF rules and by how much does the CAA differ? Would the RAF regs be workable in a civil role?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AH would never have been allowed to display a Hunter with such low hours if he were still in the RAF. The CAA should have set specific rules ages ago with regard to currency and minimum experience requirements.
As consumers of airshows, do the public need to see larger vintage aircraft flown through demanding aerobatics? Or could they be content with some graceful passes, if we the industry offered only that? Let the light, purpose build aerobatic aircraft provide those demanding displays, and allow the audience to enjoy the passive participation of the larger and vintage aircraft.
Though I have not read the report, I wonder if investigators consider the need for providing demanding aerobatic displays in larger vintage aircraft. Should the report ask, or should we (the pilots and "industry") ask ourselves: Are we offering too much to the public in these airshows?
I think it's one of those things where no matter the requirements laid down accidents will happen. Even the best trained have come to grief. I think it was Hawker test pilot Bill Bedford who, during a demonstration flight in a Hunter in Switzerland, thought he was going to drill a hole in the pavement when on the back side of a loop. Forgot about field elevation, bit like the Thunderbird F-16 chap. Bill considered test and demonstration flying as the two most dangerous pass times in aviation.
Ratty
I think the current RAF rules state that a display pilot has to have a certain total number of hours on type and must have flown several more in the previous 14 days (someone did mention exact requirements in a previous post). Cost is obviously a huge factor but just because you can't afford to comply doesn't mean it's not necessary. Quoting several RAF accidents to current pilots only serves to emphasise the point. As the great Bill Bedford said - display flying is inherently dangerous. To attempt it with little or no experience and/or recency is asking for trouble.
I think the current RAF rules state that a display pilot has to have a certain total number of hours on type and must have flown several more in the previous 14 days (someone did mention exact requirements in a previous post). Cost is obviously a huge factor but just because you can't afford to comply doesn't mean it's not necessary. Quoting several RAF accidents to current pilots only serves to emphasise the point. As the great Bill Bedford said - display flying is inherently dangerous. To attempt it with little or no experience and/or recency is asking for trouble.
Quoting Rat 5: "but who at CAA would have the experience to start with a clean sheet of paper and devise suitable rules/regs for a DA? Surely, if they have no experience they should go to those that have and consult... "
Absolutely. I'd have thought simple commonsense would say that allowing DA renewal on a vastly different, much simpler type was highly dubious for a start.
Allowing low level aerobatic displays to be carried out at all with so little evidence of pilot training and relevant currency on type seems remarkably laissez faire.
In fairness to the CAA I have to say it surprises me that AH was happy to display and aircraft in which he had had so little solid practice time. Possibly that is a function of his experience as an aerobatic pilot, or possibly it indicates there may have been a certain level of over-confidence. The old saw about old pilots and bold pilots perhaps?
A great shame that no other possible opportunities for anyone to break the chain of consequences were taken.
Step Turn - If I may say, I think you have made a very good point about the style of possible display. A less challenging display sequence would also have allowed AH to build currency and competence on type in a straightforward and useful way at low cost and risk all round.
Absolutely. I'd have thought simple commonsense would say that allowing DA renewal on a vastly different, much simpler type was highly dubious for a start.
Allowing low level aerobatic displays to be carried out at all with so little evidence of pilot training and relevant currency on type seems remarkably laissez faire.
In fairness to the CAA I have to say it surprises me that AH was happy to display and aircraft in which he had had so little solid practice time. Possibly that is a function of his experience as an aerobatic pilot, or possibly it indicates there may have been a certain level of over-confidence. The old saw about old pilots and bold pilots perhaps?
A great shame that no other possible opportunities for anyone to break the chain of consequences were taken.
Step Turn - If I may say, I think you have made a very good point about the style of possible display. A less challenging display sequence would also have allowed AH to build currency and competence on type in a straightforward and useful way at low cost and risk all round.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airpolice
Actually, Step Turn made a very valid point, which, if you stop to think about it instead of launching into an attack, does not require study of the report.
I often wonder what spectacle there is in a single small jet (and the Gnat was even smaller) performing vertical manoeuvres up to several thousand feet. Is it more for the pilots' pleasure/ego trip rather than the spectators'? Far more entertaining to see a pair of Stearmans at 500 ft.
Actually, Step Turn made a very valid point, which, if you stop to think about it instead of launching into an attack, does not require study of the report.
I often wonder what spectacle there is in a single small jet (and the Gnat was even smaller) performing vertical manoeuvres up to several thousand feet. Is it more for the pilots' pleasure/ego trip rather than the spectators'? Far more entertaining to see a pair of Stearmans at 500 ft.