Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oberon:
As I posted earlier the manouvre was discussed elsewhere, I believe a 1/4 clover was mentioned, I have no idea what AH had planned. But yes, loops are normally flown parallel to the display line, but they don't have to be as long as they don't infringe.
Overstress, yes I agree with you there but this manoeuvre (a loop?) would surely have been along the display line?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could I ask UK experts why it is required to have the airshow at the actual airport? For example comparing this to Canada where I'm from, our annual airshow has performers use both Toronto City Centre and Pearson airport for staging but the actual show itself takes place over the lake, well away from roads and other infra-structure.
As far as I know, the rules are similar in the UK vs Canada / US / elsewhere.
There is typically an "aerobatic box" away from the crowds where aerobatic maneuvers are confined to, and with few exceptions the energy vector from the maneuvers must remain pointed away from the "primary" spectator area.
Nearby roads, etc., are considered to be "secondary" spectator areas (as people might congregate there) so there are minimum altitudes and maneuvering restrictions relating to secondary areas as well.
(By definition, secondary spectator areas are outside the "aerobatic box" so no aerobatic maneuvers should be performed there).
In this case obviously something has gone terribly wrong with the descent going outside of the aerobatic box.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been discussed elsewhere, including the parallel thread in the military forum. I don't have a copy of AH's display sequence, but the organisers of the show will have had. They, and he, would not have been 'confused' as to what was planned.
My question relates to the fact that many people on this forum are asking exactly what type of manoeuvre (a failed loop or what?) was actually attempted and whether this attempted manoeuvre was a part of the planned display programme.
That's it, nothing else.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
A lot of questions can be answered with the information found here;
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%204...l%20events.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%204...l%20events.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the aviation regulators are not having a knee-jerk reaction based on evidence and the proper risk assessment that is demanded of operators! Or am I missing something?
BBC News
Flypasts only for vintage jets and all Hunters grounded.
BBC News
Flypasts only for vintage jets and all Hunters grounded.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CAA
Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means high energy aerobatics will not be permitted.
How will this affect the Vulcan's last year flying? No wing overs or impressive turns, but surely even opening up the engines for the scream is high energy - as is just getting the old girl off the ground.
If enthusiasts/organizers/participants of some other lawful but dangerous activity managed to produce an outcome that killed and maimed several dozen entirely innocent people who were not partaking in any fashion that suggested assumption of risk, would you be so quick to condemn the authorities for imposing an interim ban? Or do you think a repeat of the same sort of event next weekend would be wise?
Last edited by voyageur9; 24th Aug 2015 at 16:16. Reason: typos,
dsc810 wrote
There is an out of focus object in the following video. It appears to cross the path of the Hunter but in reality it will be much closer to the camera. Out of focus pollen, insects and birds along with bright lighting conditions create this illusion.
See from 0:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8
@Quentinc
The 'flash' is believed to be a bird much closer to the camera so out of focus passing across the viewpoint.
I saw an analysis of it as a 'still' somewhere on these forums showing it was not aligned with the path of the aircraft.
It was probably on another valuable post which has since been deleted.
Edit Siloesid made this comment redundant
The 'flash' is believed to be a bird much closer to the camera so out of focus passing across the viewpoint.
I saw an analysis of it as a 'still' somewhere on these forums showing it was not aligned with the path of the aircraft.
It was probably on another valuable post which has since been deleted.
Edit Siloesid made this comment redundant
See from 0:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Phileas Fogg
A not too dissimilar incident at the 1997 Ostend Air Show resulted in a banning of air shows in Belgium.
Unfortunately it can take a loss of innocent lives for sense to be realised!
A not too dissimilar incident at the 1997 Ostend Air Show resulted in a banning of air shows in Belgium.
Unfortunately it can take a loss of innocent lives for sense to be realised!
Whether there was a temporary ban following the accident, I know not; but there's certainly not one in force now.
Take a look at this graphic...
It has bothered me that the run in looked like the start of a barrel roll - which would have had its descending line in front of the crowd - but what was flown was an off airport loop that would have finished with a low flypast.
There is a continuous rate of roll up to to the apex then a wings level pull through.
It has bothered me that the run in looked like the start of a barrel roll - which would have had its descending line in front of the crowd - but what was flown was an off airport loop that would have finished with a low flypast.
There is a continuous rate of roll up to to the apex then a wings level pull through.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Secret
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did post a comment earlier about just such a thing, ETOPS.
Perhaps for just a moment AH was trying to make the wrong display line (A27) after coming out of his quarter-clover manoeuvre?
Great graphic, by the way.
Perhaps for just a moment AH was trying to make the wrong display line (A27) after coming out of his quarter-clover manoeuvre?
Great graphic, by the way.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at this graphic...
It has bothered me that the run in looked like the start of a barrel roll - which would have had its descending line in front of the crowd - but what was flown was an off airport loop that would have finished with a low flypast.
There is a continuous rate of roll up to to the apex then a wings level pull through.
It has bothered me that the run in looked like the start of a barrel roll - which would have had its descending line in front of the crowd - but what was flown was an off airport loop that would have finished with a low flypast.
There is a continuous rate of roll up to to the apex then a wings level pull through.
The wind on Saturday was Easterly. The high ground to the north of the airfield would have contributed to down draught effects, and a tail wind, during the descent from that flight path.
The CFI at Shoreham (also a CAA examiner) with 7000 Hrs experience, warned me over 20 years ago that the high ground could cause some very dramatic effects on the approach to runway 20, and I experienced them myself during training. His warning meant that I was ready for the effect, if he hadn't warned me, the result could have been very different on at least 2 occasions.
I suspect it could also have been a contributory factor on Saturday.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If enthusiasts/organizers/participants of some other lawful but dangerous activity managed to produce an outcome that killed and maimed several dozen entirely innocent people who were not partaking in any fashion that suggested assumption of risk, would you be so quick to condemn the authorities for imposing an interim ban? Or do you think a repeat of the same sort of event next weekend would be wise?
But just because I happen to work in the aviation industry and happen to enjoy watching pilots showing what their aircraft are capable of does not mean that I become irrational when something happens involving an aircraft. Any more than I become irrational and demand a knee-jerk reaction when people lose their lives in senseless accidents whilst, for example, travelling in a train. I want the people charged with establishing what happened to do their job and to report the facts and make their recommendations to prevent it happening again. Only if there is an identifiable and substantial risk of the same thing happening again before the facts can be established and analysed would I expect to see restrictions imposed in the interim - this, by my definition, is not a knee-jerk reaction but rather one based on evidence.
You ask if those of my mind think a think a 'repeat of the same sort of event next weekend would be wise?'. And that is the key to making a rational response - on the basis of the information that has been made available up until now, understanding that a repeat next weekend is extremely unlikely.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm rather sceptical of that graphic - knowing the area well, and having seen Lancing College in the background in other videos it doesn't quite line up (to my eyes anyway).
Edit: Here's a Google Streetview link from the hill overlooking the airport; this can be matched up fairly well with the video (which was presumably filmed from somewhere close to this position on Mill Hill).
Edit: Here's a Google Streetview link from the hill overlooking the airport; this can be matched up fairly well with the video (which was presumably filmed from somewhere close to this position on Mill Hill).
Last edited by slfie; 24th Aug 2015 at 17:37. Reason: Added Streetview Link
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voyageur9 says in #271: " ... do you think a repeat of the same sort of event next weekend would be wise?"
If you asked Ladbrokes to give you odds on a repeat tragedy next weekend, I suspect that they would quote odds better than 1000:1, and be very eager to take your money.
These vintage aircraft do not necessarily have massive hours, are very valuable, generally well maintained and flown by highly competent personnel.
In my view, the CAA's knee jerk reaction to embargo vintage aircraft displays until further notice is absurd, particularly since it should affect XH558's last season. They must do their work, publish a report and then make a decision.
If you asked Ladbrokes to give you odds on a repeat tragedy next weekend, I suspect that they would quote odds better than 1000:1, and be very eager to take your money.
These vintage aircraft do not necessarily have massive hours, are very valuable, generally well maintained and flown by highly competent personnel.
In my view, the CAA's knee jerk reaction to embargo vintage aircraft displays until further notice is absurd, particularly since it should affect XH558's last season. They must do their work, publish a report and then make a decision.
Guardian reporting that no further casualties have been found underneath the now lifted wreckage. A small blessing.
I believe the police have yet to rule out a rise in numbers entirely.
I believe the police have yet to rule out a rise in numbers entirely.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Downwind Lander
Voyageur9 says in #271: " ... do you think a repeat of the same sort of event next weekend would be wise?"
If you asked Ladbrokes to give you odds on a repeat tragedy next weekend, I suspect that they would quote odds better than 1000:1, and be very eager to take your money.
These vintage aircraft do not necessarily have massive hours, are very valuable, generally well maintained and flown by highly competent personnel.
In my view, the CAA's knee jerk reaction to embargo vintage aircraft displays until further notice is absurd, particularly since it should affect XH558's last season. They must do their work, publish a report and then make a decision.
If you asked Ladbrokes to give you odds on a repeat tragedy next weekend, I suspect that they would quote odds better than 1000:1, and be very eager to take your money.
These vintage aircraft do not necessarily have massive hours, are very valuable, generally well maintained and flown by highly competent personnel.
In my view, the CAA's knee jerk reaction to embargo vintage aircraft displays until further notice is absurd, particularly since it should affect XH558's last season. They must do their work, publish a report and then make a decision.
It seems quite reasonable to bring in temporary restrictions.
Downwind,
So are you arguing that if it is only a 1 in 2000 chance of a repeat then that represents a reasonable and acceptable risk to the road users next to a display?
So are you arguing that if it is only a 1 in 2000 chance of a repeat then that represents a reasonable and acceptable risk to the road users next to a display?