Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

[treadigraph]

Many thanks for the link Cgb.

[PoacherNowGamekeeper]

The Daily Mail??

Likened to spending four months in a lunatic asylum.

Listen only to expert opinions, not the tabloid press.

[cessnapete]

Looks fine. Over regulate and increase the paperwork to the extent that most, other than the largest commercially run airshows, become unviable.
One requirement being discussed apparently, is to require all display pilots to possess a valid Class 1 medical. That would remove a number of experienced warbirds pilots off the scene.
I suppose thats the object, restrict most displays, more safety, no displays absolute safety. Noticeably absent on the various CAA review panels are practicing display pilots, only one.
The rest appear to be Health and Safety and desk bound "experts,"
To illustrate the " must be seen to do something mentality". At one of the displays after the Shoreham event last year, despite the completely random nature of where the accident aircraft would impact, pilots display gate perameters were changed mid display according to the traffic density on an adjacent road!
I still don't understand how you 'mitigate or risk assess' for example, bits falling onto random passers by, if for example, a military jet aerobatic team during "high energy manoeuvres" make an error, and collide over the outskirts of say Aldershot during a Farnborough display.

[PoacherNowGamekeeper]

^^^^
Exactly Pete, you can't mitigate against the absolute certainty of bits falling off aircraft or a full blown accident. If it's going to happen, it will - and does. Today in the UK, X number of people will be killed on the roads, X number of people will be killed in their houses doing DIY, etc, etc.....That's life unfortunately.

All I will say is that this event will be a complete gamechanger for displays in the UK.

[Sir George Cayley]

This is a better link http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...ons%20eval.pdf

SGC

[Pittsextra]

Do you really see it as so restrictive?? You don't see it as a formalisation of some items already within 403 either implied or explicit?

Interestingly given what prompted the review are elements surrounding the venue seem secondary to those focusing upon the people. For example I am surprised the need to explicitly mention that the FDD should know what elements are within a display... I'm not sure how he fulfils his current 403 requirements without knowing.

[Vilters]

If it would have been 5°C cooler that day, we would not have this discussion at all.

Sometimes, "things" are in very little corners.
=> 5°C was all it took to run out of power, lift and ultimately altitude.

[9 lives]

"If" a lot of things, we'd not be having this discussion. 5C could make the difference, as could 5 more knots over the top of the loop, 5/10 of a second later to accelerate before building up a lot of G in the recovery, or 5 tens of feet higher entry and recovery altitude. Or, 5 more minutes thinking about where an out of control aircraft could hit the ground.

Unhappily, airshow planners failed to imagine what would happen if a pilot lost control during a loop recovery, Regulators failed to consider an abnormal event that the planners did not plan for, and the pilot failed to maintain the needed margin for his loop. The sum of that ended in disaster. If any one of them had gone better, the consequences would have been much less severe.

Now, we are all reminded that our part in aviation, as it relates to public safety, requires an extra bit of thought. The AAIB will remind us again later.

[sky9]

The difference between 200ft and 500ft would have made this a non event whatever the temperature.

[LOMCEVAK]

sky9,

In the accident manoeuvre the aircraft was 200+ ft lower on completion than on entry. Therefore, from a 500 ft entry it would still have been less than 300 ft agl on completion if flown in the same manner ; do you really think that would still have been a 'non event'?

[mrangryofwarlingham]

300 agl sounds like a better outcome to me.
The comment has been made earlier about entry heights and gates, and that it matters not what the entry height was so long as the gate was made. However, those that make this comment do not then comment whether the gate was indeed made.
And if the gate was not made, I would not be surprised if a contributory factor to the gate not being made was the low entry height.
Certainly an entry at 500 ft gives more margin for error if a problem occurs.

[9 lives]

But does making the gate on speed and altitude still assure a safe outcome of the maneuver?

[mrangryofwarlingham]

Does failure to make the gate ensure an unsafe outcome?

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

When you're pulling out of a looping maneuver over a crowded highway... well, you shouldn't EVER be pulling out of a looping maneuver over a crowded highway. Or a crowded anything. Note the consequences. Airshows are optional, public safety is not. I love airshows, we have a lot of them in Northern California and Reno is nearby. Support safety, and you're supporting airshows.

[Cows getting bigger]

Many of us still appear to be ignoring the elephant in the room.

[oscarisapc]

Which is? Sometimes when you are so close to an elephant, all you can see is the tail.
There is a very interesting parallel thread in Military about currency to display standard on different types.

[9 lives]

Does failure to make the gate ensure an unsafe outcome?

If the gate is established as the minimum safe entry point, then yes, failure to make it ensures an unsafe outcome, in the context of the original intent. Does it ensure a crash? Not so certain, but it sure should be a wake up call.

Elephant in the room? I would only be speculating, as I do not have a full set of facts about the event. I speculate that a low altitude entry left less than comfortable margin for completion of the loop. I'm sure that the pilot intended diligence with respect to not overflying crowd lines. Perhaps a factor (prevailing wind?) resulted in unexpected displacement of the maneuver toward the crowd, and the pilot pulled harder through the loop in an attempt to correct for that factor.

The reports state a speed over the top which sounds slow to me for that type of aircraft (though I am not type familiar). If I loop my plane too hard, it may be slow over the top. I'm sure that this is not aircraft type specific to my plane. I have learned from experience (at happily high altitudes) that slow and less than 1G over the top, and you'll have to recover that speed on the way back down, in addition to just finishing the loop - more pulling harder than planned. Pull hard to recover will result in drag building up, and a delay in the desired acceleration. Pilots practiced in stalls would recognize this as a "secondary stall".

When you secondary stall an aircraft, you're going to use up a lot more altitude than you planned for the original stall recovery. As a very new pilot, I was told about the perils of low altitude loops in jet fighters by a friend retired as a Wing Commander from the RAAF. He described to me his flying a low altitude loop, and getting it wrong at the top, recognizing that, and rolling out over the top to prevent following through an unrecoverable loop. He lived, I learned.

Imperfect vertical downward maneuvers have opportunity to consume a lot more altitude than intended. That must always factor into display flying planning.

So that's the elephant I think I see, but that's just my opinion, that facts will come out in time....

[Amstrong]

Cockpit discipline ?

Could some display pilots (esp. jets) tell us if they "speak" out loud to themself about the gate height/speed targets to achieve during the demo ? Does anyone knows if this pilot used this technique ? I'm still trying to understand why an experienced pilot could get trapped in such basic error. (insufficient height)

[9 lives]

basic error. (insufficient height)

There may be more to it than just insufficient height. The entry height could have been okay, and indeed probably was, in accordance with the rehearsed routine. It's the changes or inaccuracies which can occur once you're established in the loop which can have a greater affect, and very little room to fix it. A friend of mine crashed at Farnborough, while making a maximum effort to not allow the aircraft to be blown into the crown protected area. He kept the plane out of the protected zone, but bits were thrown in that direction.

I imagine a conscientious pilot who tried to adjust or correct for a variation after entry, and ran out of energy and then altitude. The failing lies equally with organizers and overseers who failed to consider where an out of control aircraft could end up.

[118.9]

The word 'gate' means exactly that; if your parameters are met, you go through, if not you leave it well closed and go to Plan B.

Maybe a physics whiz could work out a hypothetical gate based on WV372's weight and thrust:

Weight at time of manoeuvre 17 386 lbs (Empty 13420, pilot 160, fuel 3381*, pylon and drop tank 425) *fuel assume 500 lbs used start,taxi, accelerate to cruise, 15 minutes transit at 52 lbs/min and 200 lbs used in manoeuvre.

So at a weight of 17 386 lbs, assume height at apex 3000ft agl, speed over top 105 knots IAS, ground temperature 25 C, thrust (at max intermediate 7950 rpm) = 7410 lbs.

Anybody?