Thank you for the link, J1N. Jonathon Whaley, the author, has given me his permission to post his article. Worth reading from an actual expert in this area:
Following ill informed comments and inappropriate speculation by self call experts on display flying and Hunters in particular, I’m breaking cover from media calls and emails to me.
What follows must be read in the context that on Saturday an aircraft crashed and not beyond that. I would have written almost the same words if the pilot had walked away from something other than a normal landing and no one had been injured, fatally or otherwise.
The AAIB will take what time is necessary to gather all relevant and perhaps what others might think irrelevant information, before even starting to piece together events. Only then will they go on to draw conclusions. Following that, they will undoubtedly make recommendations in the wake of their enquiry.
In the following I have used the expression “they will” but it is only my assumption of would seem logical, so take it as “they PROBABLY will”.
The AAIB will look at the operator’s Organisational Control Manual, (OCM) which sets out how an organisation operates its aircraft.
(At the end of this post, you’ll see the sections in the OCM for Miss Demeanour.)
They will look at the maintenance records, the After Flight and Before Flight (AF/BF) records which will show amongst other things, the pre-start fuel state, oxygen levels, Anti-G system nitrogen gas levels, etc.
The Flight Authorisation sheet will show the details of the planned flight, such as where the pilot intended to land after displaying. They will rebuild his planned flight as if they were flight planning it themselves. I would hope they would use an experience Hunter display pilot to do this, someone not connected to the organisation.
They will listen to the chain of radio communications from the departure airfield to starting his display. Just listening to what is said and how it was said will be factors, ranging from absolutely normal to there being intimations of other factors at play.
They will look at radar tracks along side those communications. Tracking around London from North Weald is flying in some of the most congested areas in UK General Aviation. Everyone else is also “going around” London but at less than half the Hunter’s speed.
They will analyse in great detail and probably develop a computer model of the display flight profile, from his positioning for the run in until moments after impact. This they can do using combinations of primary and secondary radar information together with photos and video from the general public. There is the possibility that any GPS in the aircraft will have recorded the flight profile. Nothing near a Flight Data Recorder but it could give track, speed and height information. They will look at everything they can which is external to the aircraft. Such factors such as visibility, birds or other aircraft that could have been in the pilot’s view. Anything that could have distracted the pilot or physically affected the aircraft. Photos and video of the jet exhaust, its heat haze etc can provide them with information. There will be things which even I haven’t thought of.
They will look at the pilot’s log book and any video they can get showing his previous displays in Hunters. They will look at displays he has flown in other aircraft. They will talk to people regarding personal details, medical history, occupational flying and to his Display Authorisation Examiner, etc. They will interview other Hunter display pilots to get an understanding as to what we do and the different ways in which we might go about displaying. They might even present those pilots with the information they have gathered and ask for second by second comments. They will obviously want to interview the pilot himself as soon as he is medically fit to be interviewed.
All this will take some months and can not be rushed. They may come up with an interim finding if there is something that can not wait for the full report.
The CAA also has to play its part by way of immediate and future actions. I can not fault what they have done so far.
As I write this is the status:
No flights by Hunter aircraft.
Vintage jet displays OVER LAND will be ..... “limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.”
They are actively reviewing air show safety.
See
www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx…
I was just typing “ you’d think they’d give a simple link!” when this link came through:
SN-2015/003: Restricting the Operation of Vintage Jet Aircraft at Flying Displays | Publications | About the CAA
That is the LEAST they could do. They might easily have applied the ruling to all aircraft over certain horsepower and weight, warbird or otherwise. They might even have stopped all air shows pending their review.
The UK has the Gold Standard when it comes to do with everything related to air shows.
Every year, the CAA holds seminars for Display Pilots and seminars for Display Authorisation Examiners (DAEs) such as myself. It is compulsory for DAEs to attend at least two out of three seminars. Display organisers may also attend these seminars.
The Military Aviation Authority (MAA) likewise holds annual seminars, to which civilian display pilots are welcome to attend. Senior officers from the MAA also attend the CAA seminars.
Finally we have the British Air Display Association (
British Air Display Association) who bring together civilian operators & pilots, military senior officers & pilots and display organisers, not only from the UK but Europe. BADA also arrange seminars.
Display Safety is the foundation stone of all these gatherings.
Apart from reviewing the previous year’s display activities and any incidents, safety procedures are reviewed both in terms of compliance and coverage. Whilst these events might have lectures on a wide range of air show aspects, they are also an interactive event where everyone can have an open discussion.
The British aviation community has been and continues to be world leaders when it comes to openness and examination of anything to do with aviation. Even the medical fraternity has taken lessons from this ability for introspection.
Comments about Hunters in general.
I’m often asked if they are difficult to fly. The answer is absolutely not. They are one of the most delightful and simple aircraft to fly. Yes, more demanding that a light aircraft because things happen more quickly. Their weight and speed makes inertia a big factor compared to a light aircraft. From a systems aspect, you could loose all hydraulic and electrical supply (they have two generators and batteries) and fly safely to land. In a Hunter in the UK, a suitable runway is no more than five or ten minutes away. I would go so far as to say that the skill level required to fly a Hunter is not as great as say flying a Spitfire. In a Spitfire or other big piston warbird, a pilot must have a definite feel for aircraft, an affinity for flying. In fact the further you go back in warbird aircraft age, the more difficult they become. The Hunter is at the peak of simplicity for all military jets of any type before moving on in time to later military aircraft.
With regards to the Hunter’s age, Hunter aircraft are still be operated by civilian contractors providing the military with services for which the military do not want to tie up their own more costly assets. Why, because they are simple and safe to operate. About the only downside is an axial flow engine which lacks the fuel economy of a by-pass jet engine.
Before the Hunters were allowed in to civilian hands, the type’s service record was examined in detail by the CAA, to assess its reliability. It was and I believe still stands as the UK’s largest exported military aircraft type and was revered by all countries and pilots who flew them.
It’s Avon engine is regarded as one of the most robust engines ever built by Rolls Royce. It is still used by power stations for auxiliary power generation. The London Underground also used them, I think again as an auxiliary power source or something to do with ventilation. Why? because they ran for hour upon hour with faultless reliability. While I was flying in the Fleet Air Arm, we had a Rolls Royce engineer talk to us about the Phantom’s engine. He had also worked on Avons. We still flew Hunters and I asked him how long could the engine run without oil pressure. I think his reply was something on the lines “we gave up try to find out after eight hours”.
Hunters, along with all ex military jets, indeed all ex military aircraft, are maintained and inspected beyond that called for by normal aircraft. That is NOT because they need it. It is because those who have the responsibility for the rules of their operation but do not understand the aircraft in fine detail, will see the buck stopping with them.
There is a public outcry for “something to be done”. It is natural. The question is where is the line drawn?
Accidents, at the most banal, it is not golf balls that kill people, it is the golfers who hit the ball. Why else do most Golf Clubs insist that their members have indemnity insurance? It must happen enough times that this is deemed necessary. It’s not cars and lorries that kill it’s the people driving. I am NOT saying pilot error, I’m saying that wherever there is an inanimate object under the control or lack of control by a human, accidents happen. Ban flying, driving and golf, problem solved.
There will be lessons learnt and things will change. Whether there is an over reaction we will have to wait and see.
You will have been disappointed if you were expecting comments or views on what happened on Saturday. It is human nature to speculate but such speculation should not be made public where others might take it as gospel. It doesn’t help if that person’s speculation was based on the fact that they looked in their log book and saw they once flew a Hunter forty years ago.
Again, as in my previous post, my heart goes out to all the families and friends of those innocent people who were traumatised, injured or died as a result of the crash.
Jonathon.