Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

Old 25th Aug 2015, 17:50
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 781
1/4 clover (Quarter loop into the vertical with a 90 degree roll, then followed by the the rest of the loop resulting in a 90 degree change in display axis).
MAINJAFAD is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 17:52
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
According to the display plan, which MAY be Andy's, it was probably a quarter clover.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 17:56
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 191
I am utterly confused by the BBC graphic originally posted by ETOPS as it shows the Hunter approached the airfield from the north. On other forums those who were there on the day say that he approached over the sea from the south with a low pass along the display line before pulling up into his final manoeuvre.
Democritus is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 18:54
  #344 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 56
Posts: 6,608
Originally Posted by Democritus View Post
I am utterly confused by the BBC graphic originally posted by ETOPS as it shows the Hunter approached the airfield from the north. On other forums those who were there on the day say that he approached over the sea from the south with a low pass along the display line before pulling up into his final manoeuvre.

From what I saw or have subsequently pieced together from the videos, the Hunter ran in along the crowd line from SW to NE at perhaps 200' into a pull up to the right, a derry turn into a long descending left hand turn over the Adur valley back towards the runway, probably a little further to the west than in the graphic. Then a pull up in to the 1/4 clover leaf that led to the accident.
treadigraph is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 19:00
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 73
Posts: 0
DROP TANKS

The various photos and videos of the final crash sequence show two major explosions and flame bursts followed by two large black mushroom clouds. Almost reminiscent of a napalm drop. On the assumption that this was the cause of the large conflagration it would raise the question as to why drop tanks were used during a public display.

Below is the link to AAIB report 5/2009 re F6 Hunter which shed one of its drop tanks on to the rwy when landing at Exeter.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...KAXF_05-09.pdf
Chronus is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 19:54
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 2
Miss Demeanour

Members should take time to read Jonathan Whaley's well reasoned piece on the MissDemeanour Facebook page. His experienced analysis of what will follow the disaster at Shoreham is more informed and less emotional than much that has graced this page since Saturday.
Jonathan's displays have always demonstrated the beautiful Hawker Hunter to a level which I have not seen bettered, either by service or civilian pilots.
His carefully constructed message reminds us just how planned and structured displays have to be, and also lays open the level of post display analysis.
Wisely stopping short of second guessing the inquiry, his contribution nonetheless fills the void in our knowledge of the preparation and execution of responsible fast jet display.
It is a pity that the BBC and other news channels did not take time to seek such experienced counsel.
PikPilot is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 20:02
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 54
There is such a thing as talking and thinking your way out of seeing the bleeding obvious.

Much of public "investigations" fall into this category.
rideforever is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 21:32
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 42
Aterpster, the UK authorities are well known for their often rapid and excessive kneejerk reactions to events. Seen plenty of examples in the past 14 years! When you see the carnage on the roads every day I'm surprised they haven't banned driving yet!
Carnage?

The UK has some of the lowest Road Traffic Accident figures in Europe so perhaps they are doing something right.
mbriscoe is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 21:48
  #349 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 80
Posts: 4,863
This quote really spells out the confusion I felt as I ran that - shall we say - main video at 12 - 18 seconds. It carries on into the logical conclusion of one hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

I see that the plane entered the loop wing-level and remained wing-level up to shortly after 60 into the loop. A quarter roll took place between 60 and about 80 into the loop. As a result, the plane never flew vertically and the whole quarter leaf figure is distorted ; its main axis is tilted 15-20 to the vertical in a southern direction. The actual apex was thus lower than the apex of the initial loop movement and also lower than the apex of the intended figure which, I believe, is what Tailspin Turtle depicts.

I wouldn't dare to comment on the cause of this early rolling motion but I think it has a direct causal effect on the descending loop aiming below ground level.

[quote=Tailspin Turtle . . .
The roll following the pull up then has a purpose, which is to reposition the plane of the loop so that the pullout is along the axis of the show line. However, not quite reaching the vertical does reduce the apex of the loop and the roll uses a little energy, both reducing the altitude gain expected from a straightforward loop entry.

The other problem is that the roll puts the show line behind the pilot and the amount of roll required to align with it might be difficult to determine at this venue.[/QUOTE]


Originally Posted by Despairing Traveller
. . . It is entirely possible that the exact path flown is no more than a best attempt to salvage a flight that had already gone horribly wrong for whatever reason . . .
I think this is probably true, but you go on to say:

I find the compulsion of many people to treat a tragic accident as a sort of online puzzle increasingly disturbing. Sudden death shouldn't be an excuse for amateur hour, or a source of light entertainment for the uninvolved.
That is exactly what we do on this thread. Every professional pilot is expected to consider every detail of every crash that occurs before and during their career. It's not a mindset that can be switched off for the sensibilities of others.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 23:07
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,458
G Induced Incapacitation

Now that we have had some chance to absorb the initial consequences of this accident, perhaps it is time to discuss possible g induced incapacitation as a causal factor.
Does anyone know if Andy was using a g suit during this display?
Was the Hunter's suit control valve functioning properly?
What was the likely g level reached during the initial pull up and how long was it sustained? These are questions primarily for the AAIB to determine, but some of the answers may already be available.

As a young man, for example, I could pull 4 g almost indefinitely and could handle 6 g for 20 seconds or so. Seven was enough to gray out my vision in short order.

Older pilots are supposed to have slightly better g tolerance, but things can happen as you get older that create surprises.

The video seems to indicate an active hand on the stick, but the surprising roll during the climb may indicate a momentary g induced visual incapacitation. It will probably be difficult for the AAIB to make an incapacitation determination. If that is the case then the recommendations will probably have to mitigate that possibility in the future.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 23:14
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 543
It does appear from each video that the 90 degree (or maybe 135 degree) roll was started much before the plane was vertical.
However this only takes the axis of the fuselage into account. The flight path will be further reduced by the Angle of Attack, which will add an additional 10 degrees from the vertical, when pulling this sort of G.


I am sure the AAIB will be carefully measuring the angles involved, and taking into consideration any camera perspective or telephoto effects.
.

Last edited by phiggsbroadband; 26th Aug 2015 at 07:27.
phiggsbroadband is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 00:09
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
Hopefully they will be able to ask the pilot himself at some point ? I read he has been put in an induced coma so only in time to come will they be able to question him as to what went wrong ?
Very little appears to have been said on the state of the pilot and his injuries and whether he is likely to make a full recovery
Even if he does recover fully there is no guarantee he will remember the incident

It was amazing with the severity of the crash that he survived

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 01:05
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 46
It is a pity that the BBC and other news channels did not take time to seek such experienced counsel.
The very first line of his post seems to suggest the opposite:

Following ill informed comments and inappropriate speculation by self call experts on display flying and Hunters in particular, Im breaking cover from media calls and emails to me.
Expert refuses to speak to media, takes to Facebook to complain that his expertise isn't reflected in media. Would make a nice little cartoon.
oblivia is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 06:53
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
There are a lot of suggestions that the Hunter was too low at the top of the loop. They are too numerous to ignore without comment:

Based upon the videos I've now seen, I strongly disagree that the Hunter was too low at the top of the loop (any roll component included). He was, in my judgement, clearly not too low to complete the loop safely whilst remaing within the performance capabilities of the Hunter. That fact is very obvious to me, from visual assesment alone.

But here's a question, if you still think the top of the loop was too low: How do you explain the 'apparently' low pitch rate during all but the final instants of the descent? I say 'apparently' low pitch rate, but the more videos I see, enabling a view of sufficient of the entire descent, the more I feel confident in using the words 'obviously' low pitch rate.

Surely, if the aircraft was too low at the top of the loop, the pilot would have become visually aware of that fact as he entered the descent. This is, I think, a certainty, unless he seriously misjudged the situation or was distracted or disorientated by sun, haze etc. He might (should?) also have noted that his altimeter indicated that he was too low. Regardless of any of the previous, whether distracted/disorientated or not, he should then have increased his pitch rate far, far sooner than he actually did.

The only limitation might have been inadequate airspeed to increase pitch rate, but that limitation 'appears' to be unlikely and, in any case, could not, surely, have applied for the pronounced length of time during which the pitch rate appeared to be low.

...and, of course, there a many more possible reasons, other than pilot misjudgement/disorientation/distraction, why the pitch rate might have been low.

Later Edit

I cannot leave Fluffy Bunny's comment (see next post) unanswered, if only because it might mislead.

Fluffy Bunny wrote:
Increasing pitch rate would have lead to a stall if indeed he was too slow.
That wouldn't have helped matters at all.
I acknowledged that possibility with my statement:

The only limitation might have been inadequate airspeed to increase pitch rate, but that limitation 'appears' to be unlikely and, in any case, could not, surely, have applied for the pronounced length of time during which the pitch rate appeared to be low.
.

Last edited by acbus1; 31st Aug 2015 at 13:07. Reason: Susequent comment could not be left unanswered and thread too far advanced to post fresh reply.
acbus1 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 07:15
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 45
Posts: 155
Increasing pitch rate would have lead to a stall if indeed he was too slow.
That wouldn't have helped matters at all.
Fluffy Bunny is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 07:30
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 978
I was with a group that included FJ crew of the same vintage as the aircraft. They commented that he seemed a bit low at the time.
effortless is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 07:47
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

If one takes the graphic as approximately correct,then the intent of the manoeuvre is to change the heading of the aircraft through about 40 degrees to line up with the display line. A loop leaves the aircraft on entry heading and a quarter clover will change heading through 90 degrees. The is however nothing to stop the pilot intentionally modifying a quarter clover to roll out on the intended heading. In fact if you look at the lateral profile that the manoeuvre achieved it would have left the aircraft neatly placed relative to the display line but for the last few seconds.

I agree with an earlier poster that the aircraft appeared to spend too much time in the vertical pointing downwards, whether this was due to a problem or lack of energy I don't know.

If as mentioned earlier in this thread if there was a airspace cap of 5500 feet then this and other manoeuvres would be more challenging to fly.

Essentially, pulling through from inverted requires a reasonably narrow gate of minimum and maximum speeds together with a minimum height. If airspace is not a problem then you can built in a decent safety margin and take excess energy into the manoeuvre, if you are not yet slow enough at the intended altitude for the pull then you may continue upward until you are at the correct speed. It's then possible to use a more graduated pull between the vertical and level, controlling speed with power or speed brake.

If there is a maximum altitude available then one variable in the "total energy" equation is removed giving less flexibility when dealing with any unexpected problem.
ASRAAM is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 08:01
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 856
Quote:
It is a pity that the BBC and other news channels did not take time to seek such experienced counsel.
The very first line of his post seems to suggest the opposite:

Quote:
Following ill informed comments and inappropriate speculation by self call experts on display flying and Hunters in particular, Im breaking cover from media calls and emails to me.
Expert refuses to speak to media, takes to Facebook to complain that his expertise isn't reflected in media. Would make a nice little cartoon.
There is a world of difference in making a considered statement, and in this case Facebook is as good a media as any other, as opposed to being subjected to the bias and agenda of someone like John Humphries or Jim McNaughtie of the comment agency the BBC. It is many years since the BBC and most other news agencies actually reported news, they are far more interested in the personality status of the presenters - who long ago ceased to be journalists. it is not always appropriate to use each and every interview as vehicle to put forward the views of the "talent". Sometimes the views of the experts need to be listened to and often these opinions take more than 5 seconds to deliver. God forbid that the "talent" is not heard every 5 minutes or so.

The BBC and other news agencies are SO wrong on anything you have any direct knowledge of, how can you trust it on something you don't have any expertise in?


Hawker 800
Juan Tugoh is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 08:21
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kent
Age: 64
Posts: 9
The BBC's graphic is completely wrong. he flew in from the south having transited from the east over the sea, I know because I was there and he flew right over my position on the beach under the display axis so I saw the whole sequence. He pulled up into what I thought would be a loop but then rolled 90 degrees to stb and pulled over into an attempted quarter clover at the top of the climb it appeared to just fall over the top. To me it was clear he would not recover it from the resulting near vertical dive away from the manoeuvre. Just looked wrong.
Still the BBC get it wrong last night showing the aircraft at other displays doing a 'victory roll' when it was clearly doing a slowish four point hesitation roll! Can't they get any facts right.
Seafurysmith is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 09:01
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 17
Unfortunately the media will never put this type of tragic accident into proportion, we know 11 people unfortunately lost their lives. My thoughts fully go to their families.

However, in the UK there are between 1,700 and 2.000 road deaths per year. Averaging at over 4.5 per day.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...oad-fatalities

Only between 40 and 70 people (including 'third party' casualties on the ground) die in aviation accidents per year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-and-incidents

The media are still wall to wall covering the eleven who passed away on Saturday, without putting any perspective that in the four day intervening period Sunday to Wednesday according to the national averages around 18-20 other people will have died on our national road network.

Yes this is a personal tradegy for eleven families. But Aviation and airshows still have an amazing overall safety record compared to road transport. The Government and the Coroner system should not over-react to what is statistically a small (but tragic) blip in overall safety record statistics.

Their efforts would be better spent in regulating technical improvements to improve road safety.

I have been fully involved in an aviation inquest (over a three month period). The cause of the aircraft loss was beyond the control of any safety or regulatory body, however it was made worse because a fuel tank exploded after the initial cause (statisically the chance of this was 0.0000001). The Government got heavily critisised for not fitting Fuel Tank Inerting and spent millions of taxpayers money in rectifying that against a miniscule risk.

However, if a tree falls on a car and kills someone, it is just an accident, the coroner has identified cause of death and the inquest lasts minutes (if one is held at all).

The Glasgow bin lorry inquest is another example of a disproportionate inquest spurred on by media hype (the coroner knows the cause, why does it need to take this long). Coroners need an even hand, treat this Hunter crash as a tragic accidental death from a known cause (like a tree falling on the car), that is all coronors courts should do, identify the cause of death. The AAIB should be the ones making the technical recommendations.

In reality expect a four month daily reported inquest which the coroner criticising Government requlatory restrictions on airshow organisation and safety. Causing the CAA/MAA to be forced to impose unrealistic restrictions if any house/road/stable/boat is anywhere under the airside display line outside the airfield boundary.
ACW367 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.