Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

[Downwind Lander]

mbriscoe says "Would you like to be the person responsible at the CAA if he imposed no restrictions and there was another similar accident next weekend? It seems quite reasonable to bring in temporary restrictions". [How do I get to have nice pale blue boxes for quotations?]

Bearing in mind that the last similar event in this country was in 1952, I would not lose much sleep. The statistical probability must be in the area of the likelihood of being struck and killed by space debris falling out of earth orbit.

[Dr Jekyll]

Bearing in mind that the last similar event in this country was in 1952

And if you define 'similar' as involving people outside the airfield, it's never happened before.

[Jackonicko]

I'm not sure that the graphic bears enough resemblance to the manoeuvre seen in the videos, which seemed to show a roll to starboard during the climb, resulting in an approximately 90° change in heading.

[Knife-Edge]

Although there have been no previous UK airshow accidents resulting in fatalities on the ground outside of the airfield boundary, over the years there have never the less been plenty of display aircraft come down outside of the airfield boundary. Some years there are several in the UK alone and include in service types such as the Red Arrows Hawk at Bournemouth. It has been a matter of good fortune that there were no ground fatalities in these accidents and very unfortunate at Shoreham.

[Company Message]

A breathtakingly lamentable performance on Channel 4 from a bloke at the CAA who wouldn't answer a question about their own rules.

[RRAAMJET]

Irish Steve: "TMA base FL550"??? What they operating out of Gatport Airwick these days? U2?

Jackoniko: I know you're an experienced FJ chap, thanks for posting, but I believe that the video shot from the road with the aircraft hitting immediately in front shows the best line of the axis of the maneuver - it seems a lot less than a quarter-clover to me. That graphic may actually be closer to reality, and reminded me a lot of the Abingdon maneuver. Just the humble opinion of a regular, non display-qualled sqn chappie...

[TEEEJ]

ZOOKER wrote,

TEEJ,
That could even be a high-flying a/c well behind and above the Hunter.

Yes there is always that possibility. The path to me seems quite erratic and looks like a wind blown light object.

[sovereign680]

Loop

The only military jet ( not a Hunter) I ever performed loops in required 240knots
entry speed pull it into 4 g and it would do a perfect loop with a diameter of 6000 feet.

What are the numbers in a Hunter?

Having a airspace limit of 5500 feet what entry speed a gs are required in a Hunter to do it?

[helen-damnation]

Whipstall & 118.9

I stand corrected, was thinking of the reverse half cuban

[A310bcal]

Originally Posted by Irish Steve

Thanks for clarifying the suspicion I've had since seeing the more specific videos of the accident.

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.

That wind was certainly "fresh" and I think you have a good point there. Higher up the wind effect would just be Easterly ( perhaps why AH chose to roll to the left at the top of the loop manoeuvre ) but in the subsequent descent the wind would become more likely ENE not helping a low level pull out.....?

[mhsayers]

The wind is an interesting point. We were on the display line and had a clear view. With many of the previous displays on the day i was craning my neck backwards to look at them. From looking at the videos i believe he took the option for a pancake in the trees and possibly Ricardos car park/scrubland beyond.

[rideforever]

The Argus has an article saying that it will take 2 years for the investigation.

Really, why ? I think straightforward conclusions can be drawn right now. It's not necessary to know every piece of minutiae about the plane or pilots decision. What for ? It doesn't help anyone.

The main decisions are quite straightforward :

- can we make airshows safe enough ? : well probably as pilots shouldn't be over the main road, and should have larger margins of safety. What needs to change here ? More ceiling, deck limits ? More discipline ?

- is there really a need to close down shoreham air show ?

No need to wait 2 years to ask and answer these questions.

[brokenlink]

Interesting point about airshows and the proximity of roads especially given the need to use a car to get to most shows these days public transport being what it is. Also sites such as Biggin Hill (A21), North Weald and Duxford (both M11) may have a problem if the powers that be decide that displaying aircraft should not overfly main routes.

[Munnyspinner]

Shoreham Graphic

With respect, I think ETOPS graphic is not correct, although I wasn't there so cannot verify this. The reported crash site is East of the Airfield on A27 close to its junction with Old Shoreham road.

The actual flight path could be more aligned with the main runway which would be a logical point of reference and perhaps consistent and parallel to the crowd line and display line but that's speculation.

Thoughts etc with AH , His family and all those who have suffered loss or injury.

[andynormancx]

The A27/Old Shoreham Road junction isn't east of the airfield. It is almost exactly due north of the centre of the airfield.

The crash site on ETOPS's graphic lines up well with all the details I've seen, it puts it right on the junction in question.

[Duchess_Driver]

Resisted the temptation to post up to now, but can't any longer....

The Argus has an article saying that it will take 2 years for the investigation.

Really, why ? I think straightforward conclusions can be drawn right now. It's not necessary to know every piece of minutiae about the plane or pilots decision. What for ? It doesn't help anyone.

The main decisions are quite straightforward :

- can we make airshows safe enough ? : well probably as pilots shouldn't be over the main road, and should have larger margins of safety. What needs to change here ? More ceiling, deck limits ? More discipline ?

- is there really a need to close down shoreham air show ?

No need to wait 2 years to ask and answer these questions.

Unfortunately those questions can't be answered without the minutiae - and if it takes the AAIB 10 days, 10 months or 10 years to do a proper job that they are more than capable of doing I would much prefer that than some half-arsed knee jerk reactive ban based on some of the bollocks I've read here.

"We'll give them a fair trial, but wheel the guilty b*****d in."

d******d.

[mbriscoe]

Originally Posted by Pace

I find it very odd that the CAA have banned vintage aircraft from anything other than mild banks and flyovers over land!

Some here are very quick to attack anyone who dares to speculate on the cause of an accident. The same should perhaps apply to those criticising the CAA, they could have picked up some clues to the cause of this accident which has prompted the restrictions.

[Airclues]

With respect, I think ETOPS graphic is not correct,

If you use Google Street View and compare with the crash photos you will see that ETOPS graphic is correct. The crash site was at the traffic lights at the airfield exit road near the Sussex Pad Hotel.

[ETOPS]

Thanks Airclues

I'm given to understand that the routine that AH was to perform was pre-notified to the airshow director - thus it should be possible to compare what was planned and what was flown.

Let's wait for the info to be released whilst hoping for a swift recovery of all the injured.

[Pace]

MBriscoe

I find it very odd that the CAA have banned vintage aircraft from anything other than mild banks and flyovers over land!

That is not an attack on the CAA but speculation that to single out vintage aircraft must indicate that they have evidence of some failure due to the age of the aircraft? If not they must identify a handling drawback in vintage aircraft (not true ) or its a political move for public confidence.
if its engine related Modern jet fighters can take a bird strike low level as easily as a vintage one.

Mingling high speed projectiles anywhere near the public carries a risk.
with aircraft its not the first accident that has killed people on the ground Modern fighter jets have, old fighter jets have, air racing has. Car racing, rallying where spectators are very close to the action have all claimed multiple lives.

I just found it odd that the CAA singled out Vintage aircraft rather than modern jet fighters which have also taken out multiple ground spectators which must then mean they suspect a structural failure due to the age of the aircraft otherwise why bring in such a ban so quickly?

Pace