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 11th Sep 2015, 15:52
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by Machinbird View Post

Now suppose that a physiological event was found to be a factor in this incident. How would you mitigate that?
Didn't the Red Arrows lose a pilot in 2011 for that very reason?
We mitigate by taking extensive annual medicals. What would you suggest?
Tourist is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 16:08
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
A well-respected old sage taught me early on in my fast jet training to increase my entry height by a third for every 10 degrees C above standard temperature and then round up to the nearest 50ft.
I seem to remember such a saying being 'taught' on the Hawk at Valley all those years ago!!!

Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 11th Sep 2015 at 16:31.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 16:59
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
118.9
Wirbel

I have not heard of that saying before, and I'm somewhat confused by it.

I could understand if you added it to the gate height at the top, because a larger radius will obviously require more space beneath to pull through, but adding it to the start height seems a bit pointless without adding it to the gate at the top?

Is this a saying for when you have not set a gate?
Tourist is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 17:09
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
One would suggest that as the timings and speeds for the 'gate' (if set) at the top of the manoeuvre are dictated by the gate at the entry points speed and height and that increasing the entry point would also increase the top 'gate' obviously dependent upon the performance of the aircraft.

It was an unofficial 'ad hoc' safety factor for entry into low level aerobatics however it is going back a fair few years!
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 17:19
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Ok, happy with adding it to everything!

It seems to me that only the gate parameters matter. Must be belt and braces.
Tourist is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 17:27
  #586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
Must be belt and braces.
To be honest back in the 80's it pretty much was, I couldn't say for now however.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 19:29
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Now suppose that a physiological event was found to be a factor in this incident. How would you mitigate that?
Didn't the Red Arrows lose a pilot in 2011 for that very reason?
Originally Posted by Tourist
We mitigate by taking extensive annual medicals. What would you suggest?
Would you count on your extensive annual physical exam to prevent you from having a heart attack while at the controls? It basically certifies that you were alive and well on the day of the physical.

G induced physiological effects are part of aeromedical knowledge. Jets tend to pull g longer than their prop cousins due to their greater speed. Long ago, g-suits and g-suit controllers were invented to mitigate the effect.
In general, a g-suit will buy you an extra g, but its effect is somewhat dependent upon how rapidly you apply the g and how well your suit is fitted. Once the blood slips into your lower extremities, the g-suit is not going to put it back into your brain/eyes.

For starters, are g suits required for overhead jet maneuvers? Is that part of the display authorization? Are the g-suit control systems maintained to the same level as other flight essential equipment or are they allowed to degrade?

Yes, the Blue Angels don't use g-suits in their displays because it interferes with their close formation flying. It isn't relevant to the type of display that the Hunter was performing. The Angels do what they have to do, but they do it smoothly.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 20:01
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 0
The Blue Angels were formed in 1946. They were led by Butch Voris, a WWll ace. He selected Pacific War vets to join and train with him over the Florida Everglades. He chose this venue because, in his words:

"if anything happened, just the alligators would know".

These guys would have spent more hours hanging upside down in their cockpits, than lying horizontal in their beds.

No one can argue that an airline pilot with +15k hrs is anything less than experienced and/or is not a professional, he is paid to do the job for which he is qualified and trained for. But there are limitations to other flying work he or she may undertake, such as an annual limit, used to be 900hrs as I recal, perhaps fudges such as non P1 and few other here and there, but would not amount to anything significant. How then would one go about practising and practising more for aerobatic displays within the constraints of pilot and airframe time for old aircraft and the capricious UK weather.

I am afraid in this instance, even if the AAIB conclude it was some technical reason attributable to the aircraft, it may be difficult to escape the crocks, now at the knees, from reaching even higher.
Chronus is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 00:19
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 74
Thanks for the recommendation

Ka-2b Pilot
The book "Flying at the Edge" by Tony Doyle has a chapter (12) on display aerobatics. It can be read online and I think has some relevance to this thread.
I looked at a few pages online and bought it. Ripping yarns written with good humor.
Tailspin Turtle is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 01:52
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 63
Posts: 641
[QUOTE]Indeed sky9, density altitude DOES affect all aircraft, fast jets included. Although perhaps not an issue in this accident, the fact remains that as the density altitude increases, so too does TAS relative to IAS. QUOTE]

Sure it would make a bigger circle if the TAS was greater, but as any display pilot would tell you - one never aims for a round loop if one starts from a low level. It just is not the safe way to do it in a display.
deefer dog is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 03:33
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
[quote=deefer dog;9113858]
Indeed sky9, density altitude DOES affect all aircraft, fast jets included. Although perhaps not an issue in this accident, the fact remains that as the density altitude increases, so too does TAS relative to IAS. QUOTE]

Sure it would make a bigger circle if the TAS was greater, but as any display pilot would tell you - one never aims for a round loop if one starts from a low level. It just is not the safe way to do it in a display.
Except, of course, all competition aerobatic pilots......

It's a bit silly to make generalisations, as we regularly see square loops at quite low levels in displays.
Tourist is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 10:33
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wallingford
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by Tourist
Ok, happy with adding it to everything!
It seems to me that only the gate parameters matter. Must be belt and braces.
Yes, it is added to the inviolable gate. Whilst perfect round loops in vintage jets are mythical, the simple message in this rule-of-thumb is to respect the effects of density altitude on your routine and to avoid getting into a situation where you are pulling in the downline and the unexpected increase in manoeuvre size leaves insufficient altitude for the pullout.
118.9 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 12:28
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 23
Reheat On asked .... in his post #708

Back to the whiteboard people, focus now:

Talk me through your recovery from this assumed 100kt/2600' agl/Inverted 'unusual position'.







Here is one suggested answer from an earlier post by sometime Hunter pilot bb, post #596


Thus if the Hunter is slow at the top of the loop, stick pressure would be slackened to enable the Hunter to accelerate to say 200kts or more and get some ‘g’ bite on the air before starting on the downward path, with an increase in ‘g’ applied with increasing speed.

One could add ...

... flopping downwards to gain speed from an inverted 100kts will eat up an enormous amount of height before sufficient speed is gained to enable application of a meaningful and gradually increasing ‘g’ pull to avoid hitting the ground .....

... but an early exit from this dilemma is still possible: when about 150 kts is reached inverted and nose down say 20 degrees or even 45 degrees, start an unloaded roll gently to ‘upright’ and exit the manoeuvre. Your pre-planned routine is compromised, but you will have height below you and are unlikely to hit the ground. It is your choice.

Definition of manoeuvre in English: A movement or series of moves requiring skill and care.


curvedsky is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 13:49
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wallingford
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by curvedsky
Back to the whiteboard people, focus now:
Talk me through your recovery from this assumed 100kt/2600' agl/Inverted 'unusual position'.
Nobody seems willing to pick up this gauntlet, perhaps because it has been stated on some forums that former Hawker Hunter pilots are not really qualified to give an opinion on contemporary Hunter flying. I disagree, the machine hasn't changed and neither have the laws of physics. And this not a personal gripe; I am a current-ish Hunter pilot (I last flew one two months ago). Anyway, back to the gauntlet.

In this hypothetical situation with such a low speed at the apex, my actions would be to immediately apply full thrust and one notch of flap. Perhaps it is possible to roll off the top unweighted at 100kts, but I certainly wouldn't try and it is unnecessary, especially with 2600 ft to work with.
I would gently coax and allow the aircraft to follow its trajectory. Once the nose passes through the horizon inverted, the acceleration will be building quickly and, as sometimehunterpilot suggests, I would roll out at a safe speed and angle and fly away.
My instructor often surprised me with a 'knock it off' call in mid-manoeuvre, so an unambiguous and well thought through escape plan for each critical stage of the routine was essential.
118.9 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 14:37
  #595 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by 118.9
Nobody seems willing to pick up this gauntlet, perhaps because it has been stated on some forums that former Hawker Hunter pilots are not really qualified to give an opinion on contemporary Hunter flying. I disagree, the machine hasn't changed and neither have the laws of physics. And this not a personal gripe; I am a current-ish Hunter pilot (I last flew one two months ago). Anyway, back to the gauntlet.
Several people have replied to it, but all subsequent posts have been removed, in 2 or 3 (or more?) tranches of moderation.

That includes people with some relevant experience saying much the same as you, accelerate a bit and then roll out.

Last edited by aox; 16th Sep 2015 at 14:52.
aox is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 15:12
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 63
Posts: 641
Nobody seems willing to pick up this gauntlet,
It was done to death on the Military forum. As stated above, or variant on the same theme. This would be second nature to any competent display pilot.
deefer dog is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 16:53
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
All of this assumes you perceive a problem. The problem might not have become apparent until too close to downward vertical. By then it is too late. Pilots are 'mission orientated' individuals. Complete the mission. This is the root cause of 'press-on-itis or get home-itis'. It might take a high level of currency, familiarity & relaxation thus sharp SA to 'feel' it was all a bit stodgy and not worth continuing as you neared the apex: and have an escape route planned.
I still think the A27 ground line might have been a magnet on which the manoeuvre was orientated.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 13:42
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
And we have nothing to indicate this pilot needed to perform such an escape.

I read what you say, but perhaps you meant something else. I'm not being facetious, but the end of the manoeuvre seemed to prove a need to perform an escape.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 17:42
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 72
Posts: 1,012
118.9
with 2600 ft to work with.
Or 2100 ft if you remember the minimum height of 500 ft for the recovery.
TyroPicard is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 18:58
  #600 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Any progress reports on the recovery of the pilot?
G-CPTN 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.