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 26th Aug 2015, 07:15
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 48
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Increasing pitch rate would have lead to a stall if indeed he was too slow.
That wouldn't have helped matters at all.
Fluffy Bunny is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 07:30
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,024
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was with a group that included FJ crew of the same vintage as the aircraft. They commented that he seemed a bit low at the time.
effortless is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 07:47
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

If one takes the graphic as approximately correct,then the intent of the manoeuvre is to change the heading of the aircraft through about 40 degrees to line up with the display line. A loop leaves the aircraft on entry heading and a quarter clover will change heading through 90 degrees. The is however nothing to stop the pilot intentionally modifying a quarter clover to roll out on the intended heading. In fact if you look at the lateral profile that the manoeuvre achieved it would have left the aircraft neatly placed relative to the display line but for the last few seconds.

I agree with an earlier poster that the aircraft appeared to spend too much time in the vertical pointing downwards, whether this was due to a problem or lack of energy I don't know.

If as mentioned earlier in this thread if there was a airspace cap of 5500 feet then this and other manoeuvres would be more challenging to fly.

Essentially, pulling through from inverted requires a reasonably narrow gate of minimum and maximum speeds together with a minimum height. If airspace is not a problem then you can built in a decent safety margin and take excess energy into the manoeuvre, if you are not yet slow enough at the intended altitude for the pull then you may continue upward until you are at the correct speed. It's then possible to use a more graduated pull between the vertical and level, controlling speed with power or speed brake.

If there is a maximum altitude available then one variable in the "total energy" equation is removed giving less flexibility when dealing with any unexpected problem.
ASRAAM is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 08:01
  #364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
It is a pity that the BBC and other news channels did not take time to seek such experienced counsel.
The very first line of his post seems to suggest the opposite:

Quote:
Following ill informed comments and inappropriate speculation by self call experts on display flying and Hunters in particular, I’m breaking cover from media calls and emails to me.
Expert refuses to speak to media, takes to Facebook to complain that his expertise isn't reflected in media. Would make a nice little cartoon.
There is a world of difference in making a considered statement, and in this case Facebook is as good a media as any other, as opposed to being subjected to the bias and agenda of someone like John Humphries or Jim McNaughtie of the comment agency the BBC. It is many years since the BBC and most other news agencies actually reported news, they are far more interested in the personality status of the presenters - who long ago ceased to be journalists. it is not always appropriate to use each and every interview as vehicle to put forward the views of the "talent". Sometimes the views of the experts need to be listened to and often these opinions take more than 5 seconds to deliver. God forbid that the "talent" is not heard every 5 minutes or so.

The BBC and other news agencies are SO wrong on anything you have any direct knowledge of, how can you trust it on something you don't have any expertise in?


Hawker 800
Juan Tugoh is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 08:21
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kent
Age: 67
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The BBC's graphic is completely wrong. he flew in from the south having transited from the east over the sea, I know because I was there and he flew right over my position on the beach under the display axis so I saw the whole sequence. He pulled up into what I thought would be a loop but then rolled 90 degrees to stb and pulled over into an attempted quarter clover at the top of the climb it appeared to just fall over the top. To me it was clear he would not recover it from the resulting near vertical dive away from the manoeuvre. Just looked wrong.
Still the BBC get it wrong last night showing the aircraft at other displays doing a 'victory roll' when it was clearly doing a slowish four point hesitation roll! Can't they get any facts right.
Seafurysmith is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 09:01
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unfortunately the media will never put this type of tragic accident into proportion, we know 11 people unfortunately lost their lives. My thoughts fully go to their families.

However, in the UK there are between 1,700 and 2.000 road deaths per year. Averaging at over 4.5 per day.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...oad-fatalities

Only between 40 and 70 people (including 'third party' casualties on the ground) die in aviation accidents per year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-and-incidents

The media are still wall to wall covering the eleven who passed away on Saturday, without putting any perspective that in the four day intervening period Sunday to Wednesday according to the national averages around 18-20 other people will have died on our national road network.

Yes this is a personal tradegy for eleven families. But Aviation and airshows still have an amazing overall safety record compared to road transport. The Government and the Coroner system should not over-react to what is statistically a small (but tragic) blip in overall safety record statistics.

Their efforts would be better spent in regulating technical improvements to improve road safety.

I have been fully involved in an aviation inquest (over a three month period). The cause of the aircraft loss was beyond the control of any safety or regulatory body, however it was made worse because a fuel tank exploded after the initial cause (statisically the chance of this was 0.0000001). The Government got heavily critisised for not fitting Fuel Tank Inerting and spent millions of taxpayers money in rectifying that against a miniscule risk.

However, if a tree falls on a car and kills someone, it is just an accident, the coroner has identified cause of death and the inquest lasts minutes (if one is held at all).

The Glasgow bin lorry inquest is another example of a disproportionate inquest spurred on by media hype (the coroner knows the cause, why does it need to take this long). Coroners need an even hand, treat this Hunter crash as a tragic accidental death from a known cause (like a tree falling on the car), that is all coronors courts should do, identify the cause of death. The AAIB should be the ones making the technical recommendations.

In reality expect a four month daily reported inquest which the coroner criticising Government requlatory restrictions on airshow organisation and safety. Causing the CAA/MAA to be forced to impose unrealistic restrictions if any house/road/stable/boat is anywhere under the airside display line outside the airfield boundary.
ACW367 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 09:33
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: La Rochelle.
Age: 48
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
ACW367 - We're not stupid. I understand statistics and the chance of being struck by space debris, a bus, the Glasgow bin lorry etc. They are relevant statistics for living your life. The situation here is not the odds of it happening - we all know what they are. It's the fact that uninvolved people were killed as a result of other peoples entertainment at an airshow. The evidence is there for us to see - it happened. What isn't known yet is why it happened but I'm pretty sure that the statistics of it happening won't play any part in the final report.
clareprop is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 09:46
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Farnham
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fun not allowed

Henry Crun, Clareprop and others taking a similar line: are you seriously suggesting that any activity undertaken for fun should have ZERO risk for third parties?

So perhaps I can drive myself to work because that is useful, but I shouldn't drive myself to the seaside to lie on a beach because I'm exposing third parties to risk purely for my own pleasure?

These things are not black and white. Even trivial activities that we could all avoid can involve mortal third-party risk, do you seriously believe we should ban them all?

The only way the real world works is by making an informed judgement as to whether the LEVEL of risk is acceptable. This accident may further inform such decision making, once the full facts are known. In the meantime the CAA seems to have taken a sensible and measured response.
Weeeee is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:04
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Standard Practices

My own field is piston engined aerobatics, not jets, but my DA limit is 100' aerobatics and 50' fly-by, so the idea that there is a general hard deck for display flying of 500' is incorrect.

I know others with lower limits than mine.
Whipstall is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:06
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts



Same pilot in own home-built airplane G-HILZ.
henry_crun is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:08
  #371 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 227
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ACW367
The Government and the Coroner system should not over-react to what is statistically a small (but tragic) blip in overall safety record statistics.

Their efforts would be better spent in regulating technical improvements to improve road safety.
This is an unfortunate way to construct an argument.

They are improving road safety.

For about 25 years road fatalities have been decreasing by about 40% in a 10 year period. 1990 had 5217, last year 1775.

The last 3 years have had the lowest 3 UK road fatalities annual totals since records began. The UK now has the best statistics in Europe.

This is of course no reason for complacency, and we are still seeing improvements in cars, roads, and driver education.

Aviation of course also has ambitions to increase safety and see casualty statistics falling, people all the time thinking about how to get there.

It might be a bad idea to make diversionary comparisons with road safety considerations given the success that is happening there. It might risk seeming complacent and disinclined to look at ourselves.

Last edited by aox; 26th Aug 2015 at 10:23.
aox is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:31
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can understand the frustration some feel here about people quoting statistics all the time. They are two different subjects. If you are killed as a result of a road traffic accident, the police don't pop round to your family and say 'Terrible sorry, still, just a statistic you know'. They have to investigate why it happened and bring charges against anyone who committed an offence. The information will also form part of manufacturer and road safety research. It happens all the time because there are a lot of road traffic accidents. In the same way, if someone is killed at, or as a result of an airshow, yes it is an event with a low statistical probability but it happened and therefore the police, with technical and causal input from the AAIB, must investigate why and if any criminal action has to be taken against the pilot or the organisers. The CAA will then prescribe standards as (or if) necessary but as someone else inferred, I doubt they'll do all the examination, come to a conclusion and have a board member say 'Yeah but come on, what are the statistics of it happening again..'
strake is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 10:50
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
West Sussex County Council member for Shoreham Debbie Kennard has come out against holding the airshow again.

Councillor calls for end of event in wake of tragedy.

Also in the local press is this report from one of the first firefighters on the scene. He expresses his disgust at the people running around with cameras, but also says he say some fantastic human kindness. It also makes mention of recovering the pilot.

(Mods, if posting updates about local reaction is felt inappropriate then please delete this post).
slfie is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 11:13
  #374 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
The Argus report, mentioned above by slfie, is a very well written and balanced piece about the experience of one of the outstanding individuals dealing with the immediate aftermath. Well worth a read.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 11:26
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.

If you fix that problem, then ... that's it isn't it ?
rideforever is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 11:34
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.
Why phrase it in that way? That short sentence is highly loaded with misleading elements.
robin is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 12:24
  #377 (permalink)  
RF4
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: CNX
Age: 80
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DAngerous Manoeuvre"

Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.

If you fix that problem, then ... that's it isn't it ?
At this time there should really be no "issues". It is too early after the event. Now is a time for quiet reflection and mourning. There will be ample time for knee jerk reactions at a later date, even should you not wish to wait for the preliminary report.

You cold say that "dangerous manoeuvre" prejudges that all such events should be removed from the presence of people. Perhaps we could show it only on the tely or the Internet. I choose to focus on the "main road". It should not be so close to an aerodrome, and should be re-routed. The old A27 could become a memorial park to the victims. We really don't need all such knee jerk nonsense so soon, if at all -- people are dead

Last edited by RF4; 26th Aug 2015 at 12:29. Reason: fat finger typos
RF4 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 13:37
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RF4

i can understand your sentiment but wonder on cost whether moving a road is a viable option?

I can see that there is merit with air show venues looking at more the surrounding area and making sure the flight paths do not go over high built up areas or busy roads.

With Shoreham it should be possible and more practical to route the display over the Sea rather than the existing patterns flown?

My fear is the aircraft being pushed further away making the spectacle a non spectacle of watching distant dots which will lead to air shows loosing interest as the excitement is a major part of the attraction

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 13:39
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rideforever:
Can we not simply sum up all the events and issues to one thing; that a dangerous manoeuvre took place directly above the main road.
Well you didn't put in a question mark, but you seem to be asking a question, and my answer is: No, because that isn't what happened.

If the photos with overlayed flight-paths are to be believed, he did the manoeuvre(s) over fields, and should have just crossed the road straight-and-level, or perhaps in a slight descent. Things went wrong resulting in not enough energy to do the latter, with the result that we know. Saying (as a lot of people have) that he was doing aeros over the road seem to be wrong, from all I've seen.

Bear in mind that descending over that road is what every aircraft landing on 20 (I think!) will do.

Any attempt to "solve" it this side of the investigation with: "Pilot error, end of" will be a grave injustice to all concerned.

- Howard
HDRW is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 13:53
  #380 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Perhaps there should be legislation requiring all spectators at air shows to be protected beneath vast domes of bomb proof transparent material? That would ensure that such an ongoing tragedy as the one at Ramstein on August 28th, 1998 was never, in the future, anything other than a minor inconvenience.
But such a requirement would afford no protection to people who had no interest in aviation and who were going about their normal business outside the zonal comfort zone; a bitter irony that is relevant to this latest tragedy.
cavortingcheetah 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.