Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at 2014's Hunter display at Shoreham Airshow by the same aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrIzRdcSizM
Jump to 45:07 to 45:20 you will see the aircraft start the display coming in from the left of the crowd line, doing a roll and making a left turn away from the airport. From earlier part of the video, you can see that the crowd line is just between the grass runway and the airport buildings, approximately parallel to the A27 and facing Lancing College.
The aircraft goes around in a turn over the River Adur and approaches show centre (the airport crowd line) head on, pulls up and when the loop is almost completed, banks starboard and finishes flying past the crowd line level towards the west.
Contrast with this year's display as seen on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeSpNNxcVEg filmed from 50°50'50.10"N 0°17'34.10"W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8 filmed from 50°51'0.82"N 0°16'43.21"W
2014's display starts the same as this year's display where the aircraft did the same left to right flypast, roll and left turn to come around towards show centre head on. Whereas in 2014 it did a full loop along the north-south axis, this year it did a 1/4 clover starting along the north-south axis, 1/4 roll and then the rest of the loop and crash in the east-west axis . Assuming both years' display routines were planned to be the same, then we may suspect something went wrong, whether human or mechanical, that caused the routine to deviate at the initial quarter loop to turn into a clover.
Notice also that the flying this year seemed tardy, where the plane wasn't level while at the top of the loop. I can't help thinking why this year, the aircraft started the 1/4 clover climb at such a great distance from the airport's grass runway (where the crowd line was), when approximately abeam of Lancing College. They usually display much closer to the crowd line at airshows.
Jump to 45:07 to 45:20 you will see the aircraft start the display coming in from the left of the crowd line, doing a roll and making a left turn away from the airport. From earlier part of the video, you can see that the crowd line is just between the grass runway and the airport buildings, approximately parallel to the A27 and facing Lancing College.
The aircraft goes around in a turn over the River Adur and approaches show centre (the airport crowd line) head on, pulls up and when the loop is almost completed, banks starboard and finishes flying past the crowd line level towards the west.
Contrast with this year's display as seen on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeSpNNxcVEg filmed from 50°50'50.10"N 0°17'34.10"W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8 filmed from 50°51'0.82"N 0°16'43.21"W
2014's display starts the same as this year's display where the aircraft did the same left to right flypast, roll and left turn to come around towards show centre head on. Whereas in 2014 it did a full loop along the north-south axis, this year it did a 1/4 clover starting along the north-south axis, 1/4 roll and then the rest of the loop and crash in the east-west axis . Assuming both years' display routines were planned to be the same, then we may suspect something went wrong, whether human or mechanical, that caused the routine to deviate at the initial quarter loop to turn into a clover.
Notice also that the flying this year seemed tardy, where the plane wasn't level while at the top of the loop. I can't help thinking why this year, the aircraft started the 1/4 clover climb at such a great distance from the airport's grass runway (where the crowd line was), when approximately abeam of Lancing College. They usually display much closer to the crowd line at airshows.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noted elsewhere than average road deaths per day in the UK is between four and five.
These people probably were often not doing anything considered dangerous, but died anyway.
The Hunter accident was very unfortunate, and I do wonder about the altitude chosen. Low flypasts OK, but low aerobatics? Anything more than things that do not involve large changes in height. Rolls along a straight axis OK, but not much else at low level,
These people probably were often not doing anything considered dangerous, but died anyway.
The Hunter accident was very unfortunate, and I do wonder about the altitude chosen. Low flypasts OK, but low aerobatics? Anything more than things that do not involve large changes in height. Rolls along a straight axis OK, but not much else at low level,
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of non spectators becoming in inadvertently involved in a n accident- air France 4590 crashed onto a hotel -that was a pleasure flight too. Should we have a rule that no aircraft can ever overfly any area that might contain people who haven't considered the risk of it landing on them inadvertently? A lot of airports would have to close!
Join Date: Dec 2013
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lookahead
...approaches show centre (the airport crowd line) head on, pulls up...
sharksandwich et al
the issue is not whether victims who haven't assumed a risk to which they were involuntarily exposed don't sometimes get hurt or killed. they do.
rather the issue is whether events such as flying displays or other spectacles which carry the risk of causing large numbers of casualties when (not if) something goes wrong will/should face tougher restrictions to further protect those who aren't participants or spectators.
as a practical matter, i would guess that commercial air shows might face far higher, perhaps prohibitive, insurance premiums in future which has nothing to do with government oversight but rather the market telling punters how much they need to pay to for the risk they impose on others
best regards
the issue is not whether victims who haven't assumed a risk to which they were involuntarily exposed don't sometimes get hurt or killed. they do.
rather the issue is whether events such as flying displays or other spectacles which carry the risk of causing large numbers of casualties when (not if) something goes wrong will/should face tougher restrictions to further protect those who aren't participants or spectators.
as a practical matter, i would guess that commercial air shows might face far higher, perhaps prohibitive, insurance premiums in future which has nothing to do with government oversight but rather the market telling punters how much they need to pay to for the risk they impose on others
best regards
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it is not simply an accident. It's not just legal mumbo-jumbo to distinquish between various types of activities and the degree of risk inherent in and/or assumed by those who participate or choose (paying or not) to gather and watch as opposed to those who are uninvolved but get killed or injured without assuming any risk.
In the same way, if I choose to drive past a school without slowing down and run a pupil over, the justification for my speed being that it was closed for the Summer holiday, it seems right that my risk assessment should be called into question because, closed or not, schools are "danger" areas that, regardless, warrant slower speeds.
But, at this point in time, I agree, that argument seems a stretch....
Gender Faculty Specialist
If you were never allowed to fly towards the crowd line you'd just get further and further away.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker Hunter fuel transfer
For anyone interested in the fuel management system for the Hunter, it is cited in the NTSB report of a Hunter that crashed on approach to MHT in 1998. The report also cites a paragraph from the Pilot's Manual documenting conditions where the fuel gauges do not read accurately. Probable cause was "Fuel exhaustion, resulting from the pilot's reliance on an inaccurate fuel quantity indicating system." Though there was no post-crash fire, there was fuel in the wing tanks - the fuselage tanks were empty.
There is still a company (ATAC) in the US that flies the Hunter for military training purposes. They've suffered the loss of two, one in 2012 and one in 2014 both on approach to Pt. Mugu NAS after returning from flights. Both crashed on approach in nearly the same location and both had post-crash fires with one pilot reporting a fuel transfer problem prior to crash. No final reports for these last two yet.
Any former Hunter pilots out there that can comment on the fuel management system?
There is still a company (ATAC) in the US that flies the Hunter for military training purposes. They've suffered the loss of two, one in 2012 and one in 2014 both on approach to Pt. Mugu NAS after returning from flights. Both crashed on approach in nearly the same location and both had post-crash fires with one pilot reporting a fuel transfer problem prior to crash. No final reports for these last two yet.
Any former Hunter pilots out there that can comment on the fuel management system?
From memory, in the MHT accident the pilot (who I knew and had flown the Hunter with) probably knew that he was short of fuel due to a change of intentions on finals and all aeroplanes have a certain amount of unusable fuel; he probably flamed out. The 2012 ATAC accident resulted from the pilot deliberately continuing the sortie following a fuel transfer failure such that he recovered with fuel in the underwing tanks on one side with empty underwing tanks the other side and he departed during the finals turn. The 2014 accident was probably the result of getting too slow in the finals turn and stalling.
Last edited by LOMCEVAK; 27th Aug 2015 at 11:25.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the issue is not whether victims who haven't assumed a risk to which they were involuntarily exposed don't sometimes get hurt or killed. they do.
rather the issue is whether events such as flying displays or other spectacles which carry the risk of causing large numbers of casualties when (not if) something goes wrong will/should face tougher restrictions to further protect those who aren't participants or spectators.
as a practical matter, i would guess that commercial air shows might face far higher, perhaps prohibitive, insurance premiums in future which has nothing to do with government oversight but rather the market telling punters how much they need to pay to for the risk they impose on others
rather the issue is whether events such as flying displays or other spectacles which carry the risk of causing large numbers of casualties when (not if) something goes wrong will/should face tougher restrictions to further protect those who aren't participants or spectators.
as a practical matter, i would guess that commercial air shows might face far higher, perhaps prohibitive, insurance premiums in future which has nothing to do with government oversight but rather the market telling punters how much they need to pay to for the risk they impose on others
Join Date: Dec 2013
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty - Aircraft are required to approach from each side along a flight line a certain distance from the crowd. Approaching head on contravenes this requirement. Pulling up before reaching the crowd line will cause any disintegration products to be thrown at the crowd.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at CAP 403 if you need to know details regarding overflight of spectators, it says...
Pilots should plan their flying sequence such that they can always regain the display line without infringing the minimum lateral separation distance from the crowd line. Effects of any on-crowd velocity vectors and on-crowd wind component must be taken into account.
So pilots can fly towards the crowd (and over it in some cases if they have specific written permission from the CAA GA Unit).
Pilots should plan their flying sequence such that they can always regain the display line without infringing the minimum lateral separation distance from the crowd line. Effects of any on-crowd velocity vectors and on-crowd wind component must be taken into account.
So pilots can fly towards the crowd (and over it in some cases if they have specific written permission from the CAA GA Unit).
Join Date: Dec 2013
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piece of Cake - CAP403 "Effects of any on-crowd velocity vectors..." means just that. It does not imply permission for a direct head-on assault.
Flying over the crowd is permitted by the waiver I quoted earlier, but I would hold that this applies to a paying crowd and not an entire townscape.
Flying over the crowd is permitted by the waiver I quoted earlier, but I would hold that this applies to a paying crowd and not an entire townscape.
Flying over the crowd is permitted by the waiver I quoted earlier, but I would hold that this applies to a paying crowd and not an entire townscape
Look at somewhere like Bournmouth and you have a 'deep' built-up area prior to reaching the main crowd then display line. Perhaps a Hawk has the speed (energy) to fly clear following an engine failure but a Hurricane couldn't.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRA over a bua simply cannot be condoned. Anything could happen. A pilot could become ill. His elderly aircraft could hiccup. His ground crew might make another mistake. A heron might get in the way. So many unknowns. It is not safe to assume that all eventualities have been considered. You have to look also at the possible consequences, hundreds of people dead, a whole town infrastructure demolished. That should not be risked, however low you might think the risk to be.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Henry, how would you propose a 360 be performed, for instance? At some point during every lateral maneuver you have to be pointing at the crowd, albeit briefly.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at somewhere like Bournmouth and you have a 'deep' built-up area prior to reaching the main crowd then display line. Perhaps a Hawk has the speed (energy) to fly clear following an engine failure but a Hurricane couldn't
I'm relieved to understand that there would be sufficient energy to clear the town if there was a bird strike.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kent
Age: 67
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know where some get their information from but lets make this crystal clear. At NO point did the Hunter fly at the crowd or over it, this is simply wrong! I was there and it flew straight down the display axis and then straight up into a vertical climb and then rolled 90 degrees into a quarter clover to the north of the airfield. This in complete accordance with his published display routine. It did not run in from the North as the BBC are still showing on their graphics, ran in from the sea down the display line and well away from the crowd! Why can't people get their FACTS right so much utter rubbish has been spouted on this tragic accident it winds me up no end.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few people are making things up here.
Yes, you are allowed to fly directly at the crowd.
Watch any red arrows display, any F16, any Typhoon. They will all at some point head towards crowd centre.
If you were to see the size of the area that any jet display covers in plan view, you would realise that it is utterly impossible to not overfly houses and roads in any display over the UK.
Just as a point of interest, you might be interested to know that displaying over the water is more dangerous for the pilots. You might not care, but it can be very tricky for the pilot to judge depending on sea state.
Yes, you are allowed to fly directly at the crowd.
Watch any red arrows display, any F16, any Typhoon. They will all at some point head towards crowd centre.
If you were to see the size of the area that any jet display covers in plan view, you would realise that it is utterly impossible to not overfly houses and roads in any display over the UK.
Just as a point of interest, you might be interested to know that displaying over the water is more dangerous for the pilots. You might not care, but it can be very tricky for the pilot to judge depending on sea state.