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 27th Aug 2015, 18:44
  #421 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 64
Posts: 105
Come on Guys

Turn the speculation-o-scope to low will you?

The media storm is over, and proper analysis is under way.

AAIB will be in print within a week or 3, and meanwhile spare a thought for AH - critical but stable, and for the families of those not yet formally identified.

If you are going to comment on an aspect of the aviation, FFS look at the videos properly and read what else has been said first.

The you may rightfully conclude that all that can be said as an interested bystander has already been said.

We all have homes and loved ones. Maybe time to close the bar?
Reheat On is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 01:13
  #422 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 17,390
Copied over from the flypast forums, if you can assist please do so.

AAIB & Police appeal for Shoreham video or stills
Two requests:

1) If you witnessed the accident at the Shoreham airshow on Saturday 22 August 2015 you may contact the AAIB using our [email protected] email address.

We are particularly interested in any photos and videos that you may have taken showing the accident.


2) Anybody with pictures or video of Saturday's crash is asked to contact Sussex Police via this dedicated e-mail please.

[email protected]

NutLoose is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 15:20
  #423 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 543
Quote... If the engine was not developing full thrust, this would have a significant impact.

Not too sure about that.... On the downward part of the loop gravity plays a very important role, and the aircraft will pick up speed at about 20kts per second. Also the higher the speed the more the radius of curvature increases. So applying power whilst descending could create a bigger radius. Even gliders can perform loops and they have no power at all.
For what its worth, the climb and descent each took about 10 seconds.

The following reference gives details of the take-off distance of the RR Avon 207 variant (10150lbs st.)at MAUW, of 1090metres.
The T7 version, with the RR Avon 122 only has 7750 lbs st. The 02/20 runway at Shoreham is just 1036 metres.
see... http://www.hunterteam.com/hawker_hun...tech_specs.htm

Last edited by phiggsbroadband; 28th Aug 2015 at 15:38.
phiggsbroadband is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 15:37
  #424 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400

Are you seriously suggesting that there is an order telling the Red Arrows that they can't eject to save their lives?
Tourist is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 15:47
  #425 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 629
Tourist - yes, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere....it may have been along the lines of 'no ejection unless/until you are sure your a/craft is going in the drink'.

It would be kinda poor form for a military pilot to bang out over central London and let his a/craft do it's own thing. I think the routes to get to the Mall take into account water and open areas as much as possible.

Anyway, there must be some on here who can confirm or otherwise.
Parson is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 16:15
  #426 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
I think it is perfectly possible that a fine upstanding pilot in the Reds might do everything in their power to stick it in the drink.

I can also imagine that one might opt to go in with it in an effort to save lives.

I can't, however, imagine anyone signing an illegal order that pilots must die with their aircraft.

Perhaps just a higher emphasis on sticking with the aircraft and making every effort before banging out?
Bit of a pointless order since no pilot of that standard is ever going to just bang out over London without making every effort anyway.
Tourist is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 17:07
  #427 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Valencia, Spain
Age: 78
Posts: 29
From my association with Hunters over 50 years ago I recall they were not permitted to fly inverted for more than a few seconds because the engine would flame-out due to fuel starvation. Something to do with the design of the fuel pumps I recall. While practicing for an air display S/L Max Bacon rolled inverted over the runway with the intention of doing an inverted loop, which he had already done successfully on previous practices. From my viewpoint in a building near the end of the runway he disappeared and suddenly there was silence followed by a double bang - apparently the engine had flamed out but at what precise point I could not see. He ejected at the top of the outside loop and the aircraft impacted the runway intersection with only the wings left visible. This happened at RAF Tengah, Singapore.
Just found this: http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=58229 it appears I got the pilots name wrong, Perhaps Max was the CO of 20 Sqn at that time. It was a long time ago. This report implies there were 2 accidents but same aircraft and pilot involved!

Last edited by Ka-2b Pilot; 28th Aug 2015 at 17:20. Reason: Added more info.
Ka-2b Pilot is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 18:20
  #428 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: another hotel room
Posts: 25
I try not to get involved,but.

To those that suggest the take off at North weald was slow, get a life, it was a hot humid day. The engine was fine. It takes time in those conditions.

To those that suggest it was a flame out. Please learn that phrase flame out
Means that. The flames out. No sign of fire, nothing, a compressor stall on the other hand would be a flame out of the front of the engine, not the back.bthe highest point of pressure is the flame can now,

Julian is an uninformed twit.
flapassym is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 21:58
  #429 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On BA58/59
Posts: 168
The losses on Saturday are almost beyond words and my only hope is that some good can emerge, although if it were my family, I would at this time, not understand how.

It is with some irony that the plane which flew after the crash of the DH.110 in 52 was a Hunter. A truly different world.

However maybe the lesson we can take from '52 was at that time the display was entirely about the future. So many displays are now purely retrospective. Yes we all love the sound of a big P&W, a merlin or an avon...but my young son who accompanies me to airshows, loves the F16's, the Typhoons, the Mig-29's, the Reds and the Patrouille de France etc. The A400M display at Fairford was draw dropping.

Can anyone remember Biggin, circa 81/82 when the Luftwaffe Starfighters burst low level from behind the crowd line and scared the crap out of us all....and made us smile to this day?

It was frankly embarrassing to listen to the jingoistic commentary at Fairford this year...all battle of Britain, the few, darkest hour etc...when the Luftwaffe were flying a Tornado along side an RAF and Italian model.

At what point do we learn to respect and honour the past but not dwell on it. In that same commentary, despite a Buchon being airborne, not one word was spoken about the "brave Luftwaffe pilots"...and brave they surely were.

Maybe looking forwards and not backwards might secure a better UK airshow environment for the next 60 years.
TCU is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 23:32
  #430 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 19
Yep M0.9/300kts this was identified as the cause of the loss of Hunter FGA MK9 FG 261 of 2 TWU from Lossiemouth in 28 May 1980 near Dufftown. 23 degrees of flap used for low speed ACM but if the flap is not selected up before M0.9/300kts is reached the nose will progressively pitch down and cannot be raised until the flaps are retracted. UK Military Aircraft Losses
taildragger123 is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 23:45
  #431 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Ka-2b Pilot

From the Hunter T Mark 7 Air Publications A.P. 101B-1302- 1, Chapter 2, Fuel System,

18. Under certain conditions of flight, particularly during inverted flying, air may pass into the front tanks. Air also comes out of solution from the fuel at altitude, or the fuel may boil. The expansion of this air or vapor while climbing may prevent fuel transfer and allow the front tanks to empty while fuel remains in the other tanks To prevent this, a vapor release valve is fitted to each front tank.
Thus, when the warning indicators show, the contents of the front tanks only are indicated, this being the only amount of fuel available to the engine.
From the Pilot's Flight Manual, section 1-1, page 9, paragraph 18, Fuel Gauge Errors: "The fuel contents gauges have been found to give erroneous indications due to temperature effects on the electrical gauging system. The magnitude of the error depends on both temperature and flight conditions. Low temperatures at high altitude give gauge underreading; high temperatures at high speeds at low altitude give gauge overreading. During a descent from altitude, if the inaccuracy is a gauge under reading, the gauges progressively become more accurate and may eventually tend to overread."

Given that the pilot is still alive, I'd hope that some of the controls and gauges will be intact and give the authorities some factual info to determine cause.
b1lanc is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 08:03
  #432 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 653

It is exceeding 0.9M that results in the uncontrollable pitch down; exceeding 300 KIAS when below 0.9M is fully controllable. The limit is always promulgated as M0.9/300kts but the reasons for the M and IAS limits are different. To put this into the context of display flying, please note that M0.9 at ISA, sea level is 595 kts.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 10:37
  #433 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999

Is this the sort of thing that attracts so many around the world to air shows ?
Pace is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 11:49
  #434 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400

Yes, that stuff is exactly what the majority want to see.

Lower, faster, noisier and more dangerous.

The trick, of course, is to make it look dangerous without actually being dangerous.
Tourist is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 16:02
  #435 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northampton
Posts: 21
So much could be said in sadness, but I'll restrict myself to this: I did a bit of an interenet search and ended up at Wikipedia (FWIW*). I could find very few casualties recorded amongst non-participants (by which I include spectators, whether official or unofficial), and none in the UK.

Is it really correct that this is the first time ever in the UK that passers-by, unconnected with the display, have been killed or seriously injured by a display accident?


I don't think it is. They are just harder to research the further you go back in time and when death by accident was more commonplace.

For example there is this incident which is hardly recorded other than in this link: ASN Aircraft accident 18-SEP-1948 de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB.Mk VI TA507
( ten killed in a hospital)

The 18th September 1948 was a particularly bad day for Mosquitoes with three of them being involved in fatal crashes during air displays at different locations. The one at Manston also killed ten on the ground but in that incident I think those would be technically classed as spectators as they were on the road leading into the air display.
Wind Sock is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 16:28
  #436 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8
I don't think airshow afficionados will ever get close to experiencing this though:

jlsmith is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 16:38
  #437 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kent
Age: 64
Posts: 9
TCU I think you will find that the five ship Starfighter team that approached Biggin from crowd rear, low and fast back then (81 I think) were the Canadian Armed Forces Demonstration Team the Tiger Romeos. Great sight and sound, especially running down wind to land, remember it well. The kid in front of us was so shocked he threw his ice cream all over the people in front!

Interesting that on all the threads I have read on this tragic incident there is no mention of the changes made to UK Displays after the Ramstien accident which I think was the last time any major changes were made to air displays in the UK?

Also, if you ignore all the big blue 'Police Notice - NO VIEWING' signs on and around the junction both sides of the A27 are you not deliberately putting your self in harms way?
Seafurysmith is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 18:50
  #438 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
jls: In 1976 I was at Bournemouth UK preparing for a beach show. The Red Arrows (gnats) arrived at the airfield and beat 7 bells of @$% out of it. The Leader flew sedately down the runway at 30'. Behind him a couple of the others mowed the grass. One of the last guys came down the runway and I swear if he had lowered the gear he would have climbed. The gnat looked as flat bottomed as an F! car and your backside was as close to the tarmac as Lewis H.

Back to the video & pictorial of the Hunter manoeuvre I have the thought that the the pull up was not at 90 to the intended final pull-out line, the runway. The initial pull up might have been closer to 90 to A27. The roll off the top for the 1/4 clover was not a 90 roll but would have required more like 135 roll. The target line was blind to the pilot as the roll off was initiated. The most significant ground feature for orientation was A27. During the pull through after the roll off the top A27 would have been the most significant and visible ground line feature, and it would have led to the runway centreline. During the descent a resulting roll of 45 left would have been required after the runway centre line was acquired. If it was realised late that the pull out was the priority then the roll left would be forgotten. It was now survival.
If the arrival manoeuvre had been a 3/4 loop then the runway would have been in view all the time and a 45 roll made on the descending portion of the loop to realign with the runway. As this was now a roll towards the target. rather than away from, then the initial pull up might have had to be made a little further away from the threshold to allow the realignment manoeuvre. My thoughts being that the target line would have been in view at all times, no blind spots.
Those with more experience might have further insight.

Last edited by RAT 5; 29th Aug 2015 at 19:07.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 19:01
  #439 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400

The interesting thing about the Argentinian misbehaviour is that whilst it may be dangerous to mess around like that in peacetime, in wartime it served them well.
Tourist is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 19:08
  #440 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 59
Posts: 187
At post 449

The signs were most probably put up with the intention of not blocking the highway. It would be impossible to differentiate between road users and pedestrians and those who wanted to get a free view of the airshow with respect to risk.
mercurydancer 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.