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 26th Aug 2015, 15:18
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Farnham
Posts: 30
@rideforever

He didn't descend vertically over the road, the vertical element was well to the north. And had he been descending vertically over the road he would have been further south over the airfield on pull up and clear of the road.
Weeeee is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 18:02
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
I've been trying hard to stay of this thread.. but this takes the biscuit..

uninvolved people were killed as a result of other peoples entertainment
Utter rubbish. They died because of an accident.

And all the utter garbage about performing a display over a road.

Get real. It was'nt over a road, it was over an airfield. The aircraft ended up on the road by accident.

Some people seem be indulging in schadenfruede and making ill informed and grossly inaccurate claims.

The display was not over a road, it was over an airfield. People did not die beacuse of other people 'getting off' on entertainment. That is tantamount to comparaing air displays to gladiator fights .

The facts are, the display was organised and performed over an airfield. Such displays are tightly controlled and the pilots who engage in these take a huge amount of effort in not only planning the display but choreographing the entire performance.

It is tragic that people lost their lives going about their daily business, no one can disagree that, but stop with the blatant histrionics. The uninformed media read this site also.

Were the same people shreiking about banning movements over roads and bridges when Air Florida went through 14th Street Bridge ?

Were the same people shreiking about banning movements over aparment buildings when El Al 1862 went in at Schipol ?

There was no intent to ever put the lives of the public, nor that of the pilot at risk. This accident was exactly that, an accident.

Let the investigators perform their task in the professional way they under take these sad and tagic events and reach conclusions in order that revisions may be made predicated on fact rather than histrionics.

[/rant off]

Over and out.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 18:14
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Can't see where you got that quote from stuckgear but it seems pretty factual to me. Of course, you're right, it was an accident but I guess we have to wait and see why it happened. However, revisions would appear to have already been made by the CAA.
strake is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 18:42
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: oxon
Posts: 6
To me it seemed to pose a nose up then down just before he pulled hard back, could this be due to a stall during the decent?
hairey is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 18:47
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: France
Posts: 29
Get real. It was'nt over a road, it was over an airfield..
Aha, and the road was part of the airfield ?
The aircraft ended up on the road by accident.
Did anyone pretend it was done on purpose ?
Alain67 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 18:54
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
The airshow would have been carried out with in the boundaries as specified in the NOTAMS.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 19:39
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,252
Ground Risk Assessment

Directly below the apex of a vertical maneuver might be the safest spot on the ground when things fail to go according to plan.

It's been pointed out that a local school is closed down during the event, but that did not prevent a crowd gathering nearby to watch as can be seen in photos from high ground just before impact. The toll might have been much higher if the Hunter wreckage came through that crowd.

While risks within the airfield and to adjacent structures are managed, we also need to include areas where people can be exposed to risk during all phases of maneuver.

A road closure would have done that. If a road segment is too busy for closure, then maneuvers have to be planned to reduce the risk at that point to no more than that with aircraft on normal approach and departure.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 20:00
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Up There!!!
Age: 57
Posts: 427
Flying Partner Of Crash Pilot: 'There Are Risks'
7of9 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 20:01
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: washington dc
Posts: 32
stuckgear

I've no knowledge or expertise regarding aviation in general or flying displays in particular and certainly nothing to offer regarding what went wrong with the Hunter crash that resulted in several dozen people killed and maimed.

But it is not simply an accident. It's not just legal mumbo-jumbo to distinquish between various types of activities and the degree of risk inherent in and/or assumed by those who participate or choose (paying or not) to gather and watch as opposed to those who are uninvolved but get killed or injured without assuming any risk.

To stay away from this event. A person killed in a car accident is dead, no matter whether the driver was drunk, or speeding, or in a poorly maintained vehicle or one that ran off the road and killed a child playing in a schoolyard. The liability varies especially if it it determined that negligence or recklessness were involved. More relevant, at least for this discussion, is that any changes to rules or safeguards arising out of the analysis should reflect greater care for different populations. So, the rules and constraints intended to protect participants or spectators are different from those designed to safeguard others who assumed no specific risk related to the activity. To suggest that the killed motorists who assumed the (perhaps statistically-greater) risk of driving on a public highway therefore also assumed the risk of being incinerated or crushed by a jet aircraft engaged in a spectacle seems a stretch.

Willfully assuming the risk of an accident by engaging in an activity doesn't -- for legal or remedial purposes -- mean assuming all risks from any type of accident.

If that's not what you were implying, then apologies in advance.
voyageur9 is online now  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 20:02
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 73
Posts: 0
Council Van asks "What is the fatality accident rate for air displays?"

The answer is there is not one. However in considering the chances of becoming a victim as a spectator, the reminder is the worst so far in history, namely the Sknyliv air show disaster in July 2002. It resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of the pilots and three military officials. In this instance the death and injury toll were confined to the spectators. What distinguishes the Shoreham disaster is the fact that it was those who were using the public highway that lost their lives. The attendant risks of an air display, for reasons, cause and circumstance yet unknown, were not confined to the areas laid out for the display. More for these reasons than any other, the public interest aspects of this accident will be of considerable significance in the aftermath to this tragic event.
Chronus is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 20:30
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
o me it seemed to pose a nose up then down just before he pulled hard back, could this be due to a stall during the decent?
Hairey

You have a very valid observation rather than all the pointless discussion on whether he was doing this or that in earlier parts of the manoeuvre.

its the point that he lost the aircraft which is relevant and I noticed that sharp and abrupt dip too.

his profile was smooth till that point so don't think it was a high speed stall or stall recovery pitching forward to lower the AOA.

I have a suspicion that something upset its smooth trajectory hurling the aircraft down with a frantic attempt to recover.

Maybe a failure of some kind

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 20:37
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 376
Simplistic.

Manoeuvring nine aircraft in formation is a significantly different prospect to manoeuvring a solo.
Tay Cough is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 20:38
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 9
I looked at 2014's Hunter display at Shoreham Airshow by the same aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrIzRdcSizM

Jump to 45:07 to 45:20 you will see the aircraft start the display coming in from the left of the crowd line, doing a roll and making a left turn away from the airport. From earlier part of the video, you can see that the crowd line is just between the grass runway and the airport buildings, approximately parallel to the A27 and facing Lancing College.

The aircraft goes around in a turn over the River Adur and approaches show centre (the airport crowd line) head on, pulls up and when the loop is almost completed, banks starboard and finishes flying past the crowd line level towards the west.

Contrast with this year's display as seen on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeSpNNxcVEg filmed from 5050'50.10"N 017'34.10"W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8 filmed from 5051'0.82"N 016'43.21"W

2014's display starts the same as this year's display where the aircraft did the same left to right flypast, roll and left turn to come around towards show centre head on. Whereas in 2014 it did a full loop along the north-south axis, this year it did a 1/4 clover starting along the north-south axis, 1/4 roll and then the rest of the loop and crash in the east-west axis . Assuming both years' display routines were planned to be the same, then we may suspect something went wrong, whether human or mechanical, that caused the routine to deviate at the initial quarter loop to turn into a clover.

Notice also that the flying this year seemed tardy, where the plane wasn't level while at the top of the loop. I can't help thinking why this year, the aircraft started the 1/4 clover climb at such a great distance from the airport's grass runway (where the crowd line was), when approximately abeam of Lancing College. They usually display much closer to the crowd line at airshows.
lookahead is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 20:40
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 89
Posts: 255
Noted elsewhere than average road deaths per day in the UK is between four and five.
These people probably were often not doing anything considered dangerous, but died anyway.
The Hunter accident was very unfortunate, and I do wonder about the altitude chosen. Low flypasts OK, but low aerobatics? Anything more than things that do not involve large changes in height. Rolls along a straight axis OK, but not much else at low level,
Exnomad is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 21:50
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
All this talk of non spectators becoming in inadvertently involved in a n accident- air France 4590 crashed onto a hotel -that was a pleasure flight too. Should we have a rule that no aircraft can ever overfly any area that might contain people who haven't considered the risk of it landing on them inadvertently? A lot of airports would have to close!
sharksandwich is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 22:01
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: washington dc
Posts: 32
sharksandwich et al

the issue is not whether victims who haven't assumed a risk to which they were involuntarily exposed don't sometimes get hurt or killed. they do.

rather the issue is whether events such as flying displays or other spectacles which carry the risk of causing large numbers of casualties when (not if) something goes wrong will/should face tougher restrictions to further protect those who aren't participants or spectators.

as a practical matter, i would guess that commercial air shows might face far higher, perhaps prohibitive, insurance premiums in future which has nothing to do with government oversight but rather the market telling punters how much they need to pay to for the risk they impose on others

best regards
voyageur9 is online now  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 22:18
  #397 (permalink)  

Mach 3
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
But it is not simply an accident. It's not just legal mumbo-jumbo to distinquish between various types of activities and the degree of risk inherent in and/or assumed by those who participate or choose (paying or not) to gather and watch as opposed to those who are uninvolved but get killed or injured without assuming any risk.
But in a day and age where everyone knows what goes on at an airfield, especially but not necessarily whilst during an airshow, shouldn't anyone who drives their car close to an airfield factor in the additional risk that something aircraft related might happen to them whilst transiting its zone of influence?

In the same way, if I choose to drive past a school without slowing down and run a pupil over, the justification for my speed being that it was closed for the Summer holiday, it seems right that my risk assessment should be called into question because, closed or not, schools are "danger" areas that, regardless, warrant slower speeds.

But, at this point in time, I agree, that argument seems a stretch....
SR71 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 22:46
  #398 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's my turn
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by henry_crun View Post
Is this allowed? It would seem to permit disintegration products to fly straight into the crowd. The rules formulated after the Farnborough Derry dh110 crash were supposed to prevent this.
If you were never allowed to fly towards the crowd line you'd just get further and further away.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2015, 00:52
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Hawker Hunter fuel transfer

For anyone interested in the fuel management system for the Hunter, it is cited in the NTSB report of a Hunter that crashed on approach to MHT in 1998. The report also cites a paragraph from the Pilot's Manual documenting conditions where the fuel gauges do not read accurately. Probable cause was "Fuel exhaustion, resulting from the pilot's reliance on an inaccurate fuel quantity indicating system." Though there was no post-crash fire, there was fuel in the wing tanks - the fuselage tanks were empty.

There is still a company (ATAC) in the US that flies the Hunter for military training purposes. They've suffered the loss of two, one in 2012 and one in 2014 both on approach to Pt. Mugu NAS after returning from flights. Both crashed on approach in nearly the same location and both had post-crash fires with one pilot reporting a fuel transfer problem prior to crash. No final reports for these last two yet.

Any former Hunter pilots out there that can comment on the fuel management system?
b1lanc is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2015, 04:09
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 654
From memory, in the MHT accident the pilot (who I knew and had flown the Hunter with) probably knew that he was short of fuel due to a change of intentions on finals and all aeroplanes have a certain amount of unusable fuel; he probably flamed out. The 2012 ATAC accident resulted from the pilot deliberately continuing the sortie following a fuel transfer failure such that he recovered with fuel in the underwing tanks on one side with empty underwing tanks the other side and he departed during the finals turn. The 2014 accident was probably the result of getting too slow in the finals turn and stalling.

Last edited by LOMCEVAK; 27th Aug 2015 at 11:25.
LOMCEVAK 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.