Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Originally Posted by Reheat On
If you examine this video and do a fag packet calculation from second 7 to second 11, concluding he travelled about 400 yards, it appears entry speed was the order of 180kt - that to me appears slow, and confirmed the sucking in of air by pilot-spectators with me & off the cuff comments on entry that "this might be tight"
If the estimated distance is instead 500 yards the speed is 225 knots; 555 : 250
There will probably be careful examination of such details to try to derive more precision, but even so there will be margins for measurement tolerances.
Pace
"Safety recommendations like banning vintage jets in comparison to modern fighter jets which may I point out have equally caused loss of life on the ground must indicate that they have suspicions that the age of the jet was relevant to this crash."
No, the age of the aircraft is irrelevant. The temporary ban on Hunters will be to ensure that there were no underlying airworthiness issues in this accident; you can expect to see that ban lifted when the AAIB has completed its initial technical investigation.
As for vintage v modern, there are no modern fighter jets on the civil register here (except in test or manufacture) and the only ones on the display circuit are in military hands. The measure will be aimed at recency or currency, or whatever you would like to call it, and is a simple way of ensuring that, for the moment, high-energy manoeuvring is only conducted by those best suited for it. In broad terms it is a public confidence measure which means the only fast jets doing vertical manoeuvres in the UK will be military, and where the pilots will be flying the display aircraft day in, day out. The CAA does not regulate military flying, that is MOD's job.
The restrictions may be relaxed when the review is complete, but I suspect that will only be tied to some significant changes to base heights and perhaps to the display authorisation process too.
"Safety recommendations like banning vintage jets in comparison to modern fighter jets which may I point out have equally caused loss of life on the ground must indicate that they have suspicions that the age of the jet was relevant to this crash."
No, the age of the aircraft is irrelevant. The temporary ban on Hunters will be to ensure that there were no underlying airworthiness issues in this accident; you can expect to see that ban lifted when the AAIB has completed its initial technical investigation.
As for vintage v modern, there are no modern fighter jets on the civil register here (except in test or manufacture) and the only ones on the display circuit are in military hands. The measure will be aimed at recency or currency, or whatever you would like to call it, and is a simple way of ensuring that, for the moment, high-energy manoeuvring is only conducted by those best suited for it. In broad terms it is a public confidence measure which means the only fast jets doing vertical manoeuvres in the UK will be military, and where the pilots will be flying the display aircraft day in, day out. The CAA does not regulate military flying, that is MOD's job.
The restrictions may be relaxed when the review is complete, but I suspect that will only be tied to some significant changes to base heights and perhaps to the display authorisation process too.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still wonder if this will not be a slippery slope to air shows being no more than watching distant dots
Yes, If I see a Pitts or similar type enter the airspace, I won't be surprised if it's pilot performs some aerobatics, but that is a different class of aircraft than a vintage military jet or large aircraft.
It is up to the public to present their realistic expectations of the type of performances to be flown at airshows. As usual, the "authority" eventually, or reactively represents the public desire, about as broadly as possible. So, the authority will make rules, just some times, not at the right time, and perhaps in the less ideal measure.
In the mean time, I speak with my ticket purchase, and choose not to attend air displays for which I read promotion like "death defying....".
Fortissimo -
'As for vintage v modern, there are no modern fighter jets on the civil register here (except in test or manufacture) and the only ones on the display circuit are in military hands'
Not correct
All military type jets manufactured in the UK, either for UK or export, are test flown on the UK Military Register under the authority of the MAA.
CAEBr
'As for vintage v modern, there are no modern fighter jets on the civil register here (except in test or manufacture) and the only ones on the display circuit are in military hands'
Not correct
All military type jets manufactured in the UK, either for UK or export, are test flown on the UK Military Register under the authority of the MAA.
CAEBr
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Farnham
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Realism not knee-jerk outrage
Rideforever and others banging on about the A27. Seriously, get real.
Nothing takes away this was a terrible accident, but it is clearly very rare, especially compared to many other [avoidable] deaths that we seem happy to put up with. Crowded tube train platforms but no platform door installation (as per Jubilee line), pedestrians and cyclists mixed in with heavy and fast road traffic, &etc. We put up with the daily toll because of inertia and cost to change.
The approach to the main runway at Shoreham is over the A27 at one end and the railway at the other. In normal operations it is entirely conceivable that a pilot / aircraft experiencing difficulties could plough into either. Unlikely, as there are other choices, but still a non-zero risk. Personally I dislike being on short final over the top of a train. But this is the nature of very many airports in this country, often they started out in remote locations and attracted development around them. As someone else mentioned, look at the approaches from the East to LHR. There is a non-zero risk of a terrible accident in many of these cases. Kegworth air disaster - M1 - very lucky no traffic involved; 777 at LHR, very nearly didn't make it, that would have been very messy for anyone on the ground in Hounslow. Many examples of less good outcomes around the world.
So by all means learn from what went wrong and use balanced judgement about other potential risks, but knee-jerk outrage and calls to "ban ban ban" are over the top. There is risk in everything and sometimes it will bite. 63 years without loss of spectator or bystander, despite the loss of many aircraft and pilots, suggests that we have mostly got it right.
Nothing takes away this was a terrible accident, but it is clearly very rare, especially compared to many other [avoidable] deaths that we seem happy to put up with. Crowded tube train platforms but no platform door installation (as per Jubilee line), pedestrians and cyclists mixed in with heavy and fast road traffic, &etc. We put up with the daily toll because of inertia and cost to change.
The approach to the main runway at Shoreham is over the A27 at one end and the railway at the other. In normal operations it is entirely conceivable that a pilot / aircraft experiencing difficulties could plough into either. Unlikely, as there are other choices, but still a non-zero risk. Personally I dislike being on short final over the top of a train. But this is the nature of very many airports in this country, often they started out in remote locations and attracted development around them. As someone else mentioned, look at the approaches from the East to LHR. There is a non-zero risk of a terrible accident in many of these cases. Kegworth air disaster - M1 - very lucky no traffic involved; 777 at LHR, very nearly didn't make it, that would have been very messy for anyone on the ground in Hounslow. Many examples of less good outcomes around the world.
So by all means learn from what went wrong and use balanced judgement about other potential risks, but knee-jerk outrage and calls to "ban ban ban" are over the top. There is risk in everything and sometimes it will bite. 63 years without loss of spectator or bystander, despite the loss of many aircraft and pilots, suggests that we have mostly got it right.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weeeee:
Indeed there are risks in much of life. Some are unnecessary, though. Having an airshow at such an airport as this one is high on the unnecessary risk list. Apparently, the government aviation authority now concurs.
So by all means learn from what went wrong and use balanced judgement about other potential risks, but knee-jerk outrage and calls to "ban ban ban" are over the top. There is risk in everything and sometimes it will bite. 63 years without loss of spectator or bystander, despite the loss of many aircraft and pilots, suggests that we have mostly got it right.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree Weeeee.
There are transport corridors crossing the approach to many many airports in the UK. At the airfield I fly from (Cambridge), the approach to rwy 23 crosses the A1303 (60m separation) and the approach to rwy 05 crosses one of the busiest minor roads in the area (again 60m separation), and the railway line (170m).
Aviation is in the position, however, of having an extremely high profile granted to accidents. This is possible only because of the rarity of those accidents. So, in one way, aviation is a "victim" of it's own safety record. We can afford to put the degree of effort into accident analysis and prevention because of it's inherent safety.
I wish we could apply the same degree of safety management to road traffic. According to the insurance industry, the average driver has a crash once per 17.9 years. That works out to the average driver having 3 car accidents in their lifetime. The scale is different. We don't apply the same standards to road transport because we cannot afford it.
None of that means that we should scale back on aviation. The CAA and the AAIB have their jobs to do and they generally do them well. Was the ban on vintage aircraft performing high energy manouvers driven in part by public relations - almost certainly. Was it justified - almost certainly. That I don't know the full background to the CAA's decision doesn't detract from my confidence in them and their decision making processes. Like it or not, public confidence is, always has been and always will be a factor that they need to consider.
There are transport corridors crossing the approach to many many airports in the UK. At the airfield I fly from (Cambridge), the approach to rwy 23 crosses the A1303 (60m separation) and the approach to rwy 05 crosses one of the busiest minor roads in the area (again 60m separation), and the railway line (170m).
Aviation is in the position, however, of having an extremely high profile granted to accidents. This is possible only because of the rarity of those accidents. So, in one way, aviation is a "victim" of it's own safety record. We can afford to put the degree of effort into accident analysis and prevention because of it's inherent safety.
I wish we could apply the same degree of safety management to road traffic. According to the insurance industry, the average driver has a crash once per 17.9 years. That works out to the average driver having 3 car accidents in their lifetime. The scale is different. We don't apply the same standards to road transport because we cannot afford it.
None of that means that we should scale back on aviation. The CAA and the AAIB have their jobs to do and they generally do them well. Was the ban on vintage aircraft performing high energy manouvers driven in part by public relations - almost certainly. Was it justified - almost certainly. That I don't know the full background to the CAA's decision doesn't detract from my confidence in them and their decision making processes. Like it or not, public confidence is, always has been and always will be a factor that they need to consider.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow the CAA obviously do not know the cause! with such a specific flying ban on the Hunters it's more like they cannot fly until the aircraft gets a clean bill of health!
If no definitive cause is found does that mean the ban may not be lifted ?
I know when I was involved in air racing back in the early 2000s a rival competitor had to use a jet provost as his privately owned Hunter was not acceptable to the French in their airspace while the provost was acceptable
Pace
If no definitive cause is found does that mean the ban may not be lifted ?
I know when I was involved in air racing back in the early 2000s a rival competitor had to use a jet provost as his privately owned Hunter was not acceptable to the French in their airspace while the provost was acceptable
Pace
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Weeeee.
Aterpster, the UK authorities are well known for their often rapid and excessive kneejerk reactions to events. Seen plenty of examples in the past 14 years! When you see the carnage on the roads every day I'm surprised they haven't banned driving yet!
Aterpster, the UK authorities are well known for their often rapid and excessive kneejerk reactions to events. Seen plenty of examples in the past 14 years! When you see the carnage on the roads every day I'm surprised they haven't banned driving yet!
Planned Maneuver Redux
After thinking about what Luc Lion and Radix wrote and reviewing the video from the side again, I've added an orange line to the illustration to show a pull up not quite to vertical and a question. I suspect that what was intended was something like a "sneak pass", low and out of the north, presumably taking advantage of the terrain. Or coming south down the river might have avoided high ground or a built-up area to the northeast of the airport.
The roll following the pull up then has a purpose, which is to reposition the plane of the loop so that the pullout is along the axis of the show line. However, not quite reaching the vertical does reduce the apex of the loop and the roll uses a little energy, both reducing the altitude gain expected from a straightforward loop entry.
The other problem is that the roll puts the show line behind the pilot and the amount of roll required to align with it might be difficult to determine at this venue. (In the usual loop at show center over a big runway, orientation is not a problem.) In the video, it appears to me that there is a lack of pull initially on the backside of the loop, which might have occurred because the pilot was focused on looking for the show line.
If he did not have a problem with orientation, the runway was smaller than normal as another post suggested and he might therefore have perceived that he was higher than he actually was (given that your entry speed and initial pull is supposed to result in altitude margin for the pullout, you "play" the pullout to safely use up the margin so as to level out at the same altitude as the entry).
The roll following the pull up then has a purpose, which is to reposition the plane of the loop so that the pullout is along the axis of the show line. However, not quite reaching the vertical does reduce the apex of the loop and the roll uses a little energy, both reducing the altitude gain expected from a straightforward loop entry.
The other problem is that the roll puts the show line behind the pilot and the amount of roll required to align with it might be difficult to determine at this venue. (In the usual loop at show center over a big runway, orientation is not a problem.) In the video, it appears to me that there is a lack of pull initially on the backside of the loop, which might have occurred because the pilot was focused on looking for the show line.
If he did not have a problem with orientation, the runway was smaller than normal as another post suggested and he might therefore have perceived that he was higher than he actually was (given that your entry speed and initial pull is supposed to result in altitude margin for the pullout, you "play" the pullout to safely use up the margin so as to level out at the same altitude as the entry).
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: shoreham
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Height of entry
Reheat on - good post.
If you look at the video taken from Mill Hill, the aircraft dips below the level of the opposite hill, Lancing Hill, meaning that if both hills are around 260 feet (from the apparent place of filming on Mill Hill), the aircraft was at that point nowhere near 500 feet.
If you look at the video taken from Mill Hill, the aircraft dips below the level of the opposite hill, Lancing Hill, meaning that if both hills are around 260 feet (from the apparent place of filming on Mill Hill), the aircraft was at that point nowhere near 500 feet.
Hawker Hunter Manual Reversion
Hi All
During one of my flights on the Hawker Hunter I had a manual reversion of the controls. One of the two switches in front console just tripped off. This was due to a momentary drop in hydraulic pressure, luckily, i was flying loose formation.
However there have been such failures known before as displayed here
ASN Aircraft accident 05-DEC-1955 Hawker Hunter F.Mk.5 WP118
I was wondering how and when this could be linked up to this accident. If anyone else has had such an incident please do post your experience.
During one of my flights on the Hawker Hunter I had a manual reversion of the controls. One of the two switches in front console just tripped off. This was due to a momentary drop in hydraulic pressure, luckily, i was flying loose formation.
However there have been such failures known before as displayed here
ASN Aircraft accident 05-DEC-1955 Hawker Hunter F.Mk.5 WP118I was wondering how and when this could be linked up to this accident. If anyone else has had such an incident please do post your experience.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Blighty & Germania.
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air display practice flights in old jets
I've had a jammed elevator incident once, BUT I had flown the aircraft in manual a number of times, so it just resulted in a bit of a thumper on landing (Could not flare enough) that took the Ginger Beers 3 days to sort (Kimpo Korean winter job).
Any flying display or formation flight should include manual practice if applicable. For a public transport aircraft, that needs to be done in some type of simulator. For a military jet it should include cross checking if the flight is within the dead mans curve for the seat or even manual silk procedure.
A good high tech base jumper pack can deploy fully from zero IAS and 125kts down from a height of 250ft. That is about half height of an old seat pack, BUT if it is an old Eastern block seat, that means you might need 1000 agl if stalled in similar way to the sad loss of this Hunter.
The big issue is knowing when to pull the handle or head for the exit and what the safety envelope looks like. If in doubt in a high performance jet, there is no doubt, get the hell out!
PS: I'm worth more dead than alive, so in reality I would do the right thing and head away from the plane spotters, rubber neckers and buildings. The Folland Gnat pilot took the correct decision after some kind of failure, may he RIP. Airline button pushers make PP light aircraft or fast jet drivers, as they forget how to fly and I don't think there is even a Hunter simulator. Reading the books does help, but you need several hundred hours on type before playing Top Gun.
Shoreham seems to be the place if you have good accident insurance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig
Note: The pilot survived and that one was not pilot error, apart from taking off in the first place!
PS: Weee and others should do a course in accident statistics (Very complex subject), cos flying displays are more dangerous than crop spraying or even serious new type flight test operations (Unless it's a tilt rotor job). You need to look at the per hour within the display area accident rates (Including unlucky rubber neckers) for the EU. Even the Swiss are killing themselves this year!
I've turned down or got sacked (Intentional bad behaviour due to serious QA construction concerns relating to the use of cheap contract engineers who were often drunk) from 3 flight test jobs for new aircraft in as many years. One crashed on lift off killing a test pilot, another crashed on landing after several good previous test flights (Serious injuries to the 2 drivers) and one had a more minor incident (Just an undercart bender job) on first flight, that finished off the test program.
Often the real error involved was taking off in the first place, as no job is worth killing yourself for, unless it involves life saving, like flying a water bomber!
@Display officials:
If you want to hire a real fun aircraft try a CL 415 (A 215 is cheaper):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6N3LQ5uR8
BUT do not hire their pilots unless you know them, as the FAA & Canadian old boy captains are far better swimmers (Newbie P2 and P3 chaps are OK).
If you offer free fuel (They are thirsty due to the 5K hp) and good digs, then I might know how to get one for 2K usd per flight hour (Madrid transit) if there are no fires in progress.
They can do a real fun show, but are at their best in display terms when it's a hot day, but the shaving foam additive will cost extra, as you can't drop a full load of water on people or soft tops. The CAA will have to bend their display lines in some cases, cos I like to target the plane spotters who have not paid an entrance fee!
The P2F drivers will like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujh_jV5yi8g
Any flying display or formation flight should include manual practice if applicable. For a public transport aircraft, that needs to be done in some type of simulator. For a military jet it should include cross checking if the flight is within the dead mans curve for the seat or even manual silk procedure.
A good high tech base jumper pack can deploy fully from zero IAS and 125kts down from a height of 250ft. That is about half height of an old seat pack, BUT if it is an old Eastern block seat, that means you might need 1000 agl if stalled in similar way to the sad loss of this Hunter.
The big issue is knowing when to pull the handle or head for the exit and what the safety envelope looks like. If in doubt in a high performance jet, there is no doubt, get the hell out!
PS: I'm worth more dead than alive, so in reality I would do the right thing and head away from the plane spotters, rubber neckers and buildings. The Folland Gnat pilot took the correct decision after some kind of failure, may he RIP. Airline button pushers make PP light aircraft or fast jet drivers, as they forget how to fly and I don't think there is even a Hunter simulator. Reading the books does help, but you need several hundred hours on type before playing Top Gun.
Shoreham seems to be the place if you have good accident insurance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig
Note: The pilot survived and that one was not pilot error, apart from taking off in the first place!
PS: Weee and others should do a course in accident statistics (Very complex subject), cos flying displays are more dangerous than crop spraying or even serious new type flight test operations (Unless it's a tilt rotor job). You need to look at the per hour within the display area accident rates (Including unlucky rubber neckers) for the EU. Even the Swiss are killing themselves this year!
I've turned down or got sacked (Intentional bad behaviour due to serious QA construction concerns relating to the use of cheap contract engineers who were often drunk) from 3 flight test jobs for new aircraft in as many years. One crashed on lift off killing a test pilot, another crashed on landing after several good previous test flights (Serious injuries to the 2 drivers) and one had a more minor incident (Just an undercart bender job) on first flight, that finished off the test program.
Often the real error involved was taking off in the first place, as no job is worth killing yourself for, unless it involves life saving, like flying a water bomber!
@Display officials:
If you want to hire a real fun aircraft try a CL 415 (A 215 is cheaper):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6N3LQ5uR8
BUT do not hire their pilots unless you know them, as the FAA & Canadian old boy captains are far better swimmers (Newbie P2 and P3 chaps are OK).
If you offer free fuel (They are thirsty due to the 5K hp) and good digs, then I might know how to get one for 2K usd per flight hour (Madrid transit) if there are no fires in progress.
They can do a real fun show, but are at their best in display terms when it's a hot day, but the shaving foam additive will cost extra, as you can't drop a full load of water on people or soft tops. The CAA will have to bend their display lines in some cases, cos I like to target the plane spotters who have not paid an entrance fee!
The P2F drivers will like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujh_jV5yi8g
Last edited by skyship007; 25th Aug 2015 at 17:03.
With the greatest respect for those who lost their lives.
Well, that's Duxford screwed. Who's going to want to watch aircraft moving left to right and right to left with little or no deviation for four hours!
Also sites such as Biggin Hill (A21), North Weald and Duxford (both M11)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a little puzzled as to why so many people are subjecting the loop graphic originally posted by ETOPS to such forensic examination, apparently to determine the pilot's intended manoeuvre and motives.
ETOPS can speak for himself, but as far as I can see, the graphic originated on the BBC News website - and was probably intended to be illustrative to a lay audience rather than analytical.
But in any case, why is everyone assuming that the path as flown had a pre-planned purpose? Rolls, cloverleafs, passage this way and that way down the show line, etc.?
At this point, AFAIK, there is no information in the public domain either as to the state of health of the pilot at the critical time, or the mechanical state of his aircraft. It is entirely possible that the exact path flown is no more than a best attempt to salvage a flight that had already gone horribly wrong for whatever reason.
I find the compulsion of many people to treat a tragic accident as a sort of online puzzle increasingly disturbing. Sudden death shouldn't be an excuse for amateur hour, or a source of light entertainment for the uninvolved.
The wreckage is available, and hopefully Mr Hill will survive and provide information as to what went on. The cause will be determined by competent, informed authorities in due time, and at that point sensible conclusions can be drawn.
ETOPS can speak for himself, but as far as I can see, the graphic originated on the BBC News website - and was probably intended to be illustrative to a lay audience rather than analytical.
But in any case, why is everyone assuming that the path as flown had a pre-planned purpose? Rolls, cloverleafs, passage this way and that way down the show line, etc.?
At this point, AFAIK, there is no information in the public domain either as to the state of health of the pilot at the critical time, or the mechanical state of his aircraft. It is entirely possible that the exact path flown is no more than a best attempt to salvage a flight that had already gone horribly wrong for whatever reason.
I find the compulsion of many people to treat a tragic accident as a sort of online puzzle increasingly disturbing. Sudden death shouldn't be an excuse for amateur hour, or a source of light entertainment for the uninvolved.
The wreckage is available, and hopefully Mr Hill will survive and provide information as to what went on. The cause will be determined by competent, informed authorities in due time, and at that point sensible conclusions can be drawn.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Extremadura
Age: 75
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
afterburner
Forgive probably idiotic post. Did this Hunter have an afterburner? If so, would it be used in an aerobatic manoeuvre such as was being attempted? Would wet thrust have been helpful if it seemed like the aircraft was stalling? How long would it take to kick in on a Hunter? Indeed, was the afterburner alight (if it had one) when it pranged? Thanks for patience.
