Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck 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 22nd Jan 2016, 20:57
  #741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: West of Lower Upham
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello, ex PPruner here from some years ago - had to re-register as forgotten all my details..!

Anyway, I would expect that we will see the AAIB's final report sometime in the three months of so, possibly sooner. This extraordinary and tragic accident needs closure for all the families of those killed - this is like no other accident that they have investigated in many, many years, if at all.

My gut feeling FWIW? Pilot error.
PoacherNowGamekeeper is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2016, 21:57
  #742 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,212
Received 48 Likes on 24 Posts
Pilot error.
A constructive and informed phrase, as it ever is, for achieving safety improvements.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 00:23
  #743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: West of Lower Upham
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'll put money on it.....
PoacherNowGamekeeper is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 00:38
  #744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My gut feeling FWIW? Pilot error.
Mine too.

The Daily Mail states:

One of the cameras showed the aircraft was travelling at a 100knots while inverted at the top of the loop.
How unnerving! I've never flown a jet, but I opine that 100 knots would not be adequate airspeed to pull 1G into the loop recovery, let alone the several Gs required to recover the loop. So there would have to be a lot of trading altitude for airspeed on the way down - it seems there was not adequate room.

Also:

The AAIB said: 'The ground marks and photographic evidence show that the aircraft struck the road in a nose-high attitude ........... . The first ground contact was made by the lower portion of the jetpipe fairing,
High AoA all the way down the recovery of the loop creates drag, and reduces acceleration needed to achieve the speed to make G to enable recovery. High AoA still being held at ground strike.
9 lives is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 08:54
  #745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I personally don't think that any liability has been admitted by anyone yet.
It does not have to be. Where liability is concerned (on this or any other claim) it can all (and usually will be) settled out of court.

The legal process only comes into play if one side or the other digs their heels in. The wider police/AAIB/coroners investigations are a different kettle of fish and will be eventually resolved in their own courts.

If it is true that one case has already been settled (it is the Daily Mail after all) it may just be a case that in the eyes of the insurance company it is straightforward (the aviation law would suggest it is) and therefore it is time to pay up.

Not saying any of this is the case, just pointing out that insurance companies don't have to wait for all inquiries to reach their conclusions if they don't want to.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 11:28
  #746 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,212
Received 48 Likes on 24 Posts
Not necessarily - sometimes the legal process is essential simply to decide whose insurance is paying out, to whom, and how much.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 15:33
  #747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Step Turn says in #731 above:

The Daily Mail states: "One of the cameras showed the aircraft was travelling at a 100knots while inverted at the top of the loop".


The apparent speed will depend on whether the cameraman was standing square on to the plane of the loop or at an inclined plane. i.e. it is next to impossible to give credence to this figure. (If the cameraman was standing in the plane of the loop, the apparent speed at the top would be nil).
Downwind Lander is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 15:41
  #748 (permalink)  
Sir George Cayley
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The camera was installed in the a/c pointing at the instruments.

SGC
 
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 15:42
  #749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Daily Mail states: "One of the cameras showed the aircraft was travelling at a 100knots while inverted at the top of the loop".
Thats good news then, as it seems the AAIB investigation is done and dusted.

Grasping at straws comes to mind.
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 16:59
  #750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Above the clouds said:-

Quote:
The Daily Mail states: "One of the cameras showed the aircraft was travelling at a 100knots while inverted at the top of the loop".
Thats good news then, as it seems the AAIB investigation is done and dusted.

Grasping at straws comes to mind.
Without wishing to start a (another) bun fight what part of page 5 of this AAIB report grasps at straws?

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...015_G-BXFI.pdf

Where is says:-

Initial findings indicate that the minimum air speed of the aircraft was approximately 100 KIAS whilst inverted at the top of the manoeuvre.
Actually over the top of a loop is usually less than 1g so reading too much into that speed without knowing other things is fairly meaningless but whilst not wishing to be an DMail apologist all they are doing is quoting the AAIB.

Those "knowing other things" will be already known, they aren't published because they (AAIB) used column inches to tell us about the ejection seat and a paperwork around the permit, which instantly got push back from the CAA. That the aircraft may or may not have had a technical issue has no relevance to the other process involved.

The push back seems to be "whats the rush" "wait etc etc" but what lessons at Shoreham could have been apparent from the Gnat accident at Oulton Park? What about the World Air Games fatality? Maybe none, maybe quite a lot, certainly time will tell. I find it bizarre what gets published and when.

As for the 2016 Shoreham airshow cancellation out of respect for the victims.... Again why say that now? A cynic might say the insurer aided that respect.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 17:19
  #751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pittsextra
Without wishing to start a (another) bun fight what part of page 5 of this AAIB report grasps at straws?
Read my post again, no mention of the AAIB report, the comment was directed at the Daily Mail solving another case.
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2016, 07:15
  #752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: West of Lower Upham
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep. I'd say it would be a safety improvement if large fast ex-mil jets flying high energy manoeuvres in a populated area are banned from such things in the future.

Add the fact that the pilot had very minimal recent hours in the Hunter (not his fault I hasten to add, just the way it is) and you could possibly see the problem there.

Tin helmet on!
PoacherNowGamekeeper is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2016, 08:54
  #753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
ABC - I read it. You attribute a DM quote which is nothing more than a direct AAIB cut/paste as the DM grasping at straws? Actually it's a quote from the same document that contains information about how the aircraft is responding to pilot input and no visible abnormality with the systems.

Some months later we get a lot more detail on ejection seats and permits/maintenance but no update on items previously highlighted.

I suppose it wouldn't be the worst thing to flag something if the facts changed and so whilst it might suit some to bash media for sensationalism, reporting the facts as known can hardly be called that?
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2016, 09:26
  #754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think its been said before but my view is that the most important lessons from this accident aren't so much about how a manoeuvre was flown, they are more to do with the safety of public when a planned display goes wrong. I suspect the answers to that set of questions are still forthcoming and hence the cancellation of this year's show.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2016, 13:27
  #755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the most important lessons from this accident aren't so much about how a manoeuvre was flown, they are more to do with the safety of public when a planned display goes wrong.
Yes but... those two themes are not mutually exclusive. Public safely, particularly non participants, must be of the highest importance. But, what was there "new" to this demonstration in terms of risk and hazard, which could not be anticipated based upon an understanding of the requirements, and previous events?

It is well known that a loop or a roll along the show line can go wrong, or an aircraft can be stalled in a tight turn. The resulting trajectory of the uncontrolled aircraft is not hard to anticipate....
9 lives is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2016, 14:12
  #756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps there was nothing new. Perhaps this event found an unanticipated hole - the risk assessment process was flawed?
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2016, 19:33
  #757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
ABC - So you can't answer the question about who & what was grasping at straws so you grasp at one yourself and have a pop at me... I'll post on what thread I choose to post upon and whilst you are stalking maybe see the similarity between you and the Yak 52 pilot who when challenged suddenly becomes all personal.

Moving on. Its a tired and typical of a certain generation to wildly thrash about and blame the media for all aviation ills. Actually this media has done great works to uncover many a poor form in our society across generations. John Pilger, World in Action of the past to drugs and corruption in sport or rampant child abuse in more recent times.

So don't call me out on what I post upon or my view when all I asked was why do you view a direct quote from the investigator as grasping at straws.

You try and make smart comments upon I work for the DM or am an accident specialist when you need to be neither to see the obvious points being made, none of them actually need any aviation knowledge what so ever. Shoreham can not be a light bulb moment where people suddenly realise that aircraft traveling at 2,3,400knts eat up a lot of random space if it goes wrong and have a lot of energy. If that is a light bulb moment then we need to change the people who regulate this stuff. I've referred to the World Air Games accident - do you even know what happened there? When you do come and tell us all how much of what seems terrible to you needed any specialist aviation knowledge to prevent.

Of course I don't know what happened at Shoreham, but this is a forum on flying and so its hardy a surprise that people might hold a view. So for example I call the figure a 1/4 clover, most sane people would but for others that is contentious. I think the figure as I've seen it was scruffy, it is clear that the aircraft responds at the end of the figure as the pilot pulls into the buffet prior to crashing. I can only read what the AAIB tell me about starting heights and system abnormalities and control response and form an initial opinion.

When information changes I alter my conclusions.... What do you do? Of course you can choose to say nothing. That is fine, you see nothing, hear nothing, do nothing. If nobody gets hurt in the interim period you can feel good and look smug. The problem is people do get hurt in the interim period and the human factors (many known to some months ago) in this case are of more importance to more people (for example) than the quality of ejection seats in civilian aircraft.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2016, 00:14
  #758 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,611
Received 60 Likes on 43 Posts
Steady on posters, let's play the ball, not the player....
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2016, 03:39
  #759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shoreham can not be a light bulb moment where people suddenly realise that aircraft traveling at 2,3,400knts eat up a lot of random space if it goes wrong and have a lot of energy. If that is a light bulb moment then we need to change the people who regulate this stuff.
If it was a light bulb moment, the light bulb is brightly on now!

The considerations which were not highlighted during planning, and allowed circumstances which became fatal, are known, and already specified in airshow planning - I've done it. Someone did not think enough, and a regulator accepted that. It was a failure of imagination. Imaginations will be much more effective next time - worldwide.
9 lives is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2016, 07:33
  #760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CAP 1371 - UK Civil Air Display Review. Worth a read.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...%20actions.pdf
Cows getting bigger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.