Increasing pitch rate would have lead to a stall if indeed he was too slow.
That wouldn't have helped matters at all.

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.

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.

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 :D:D:D

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.

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 - 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.

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? :ugh:

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.

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.

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.

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..'

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).

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.

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 ?

Why phrase it in that way? That short sentence is highly loaded with misleading elements.

DAngerous Manoeuvre"
 

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

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

rideforever:
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

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.

If the loop had been to the north over fields, or south over the airfield, or
the loop had been perpendicular to the A27, then things would have been much safer.
In the event, very bad decisions have been taken.
A parallel route over the road, with the most dangerous aspect directly over the road, descending vertically over the road, opens up a maximum of danger.

Is there a problem with planning displays with these restrictions ?

I suppose one will have to put a stop to that as well. :E

@henry_crun: the point of the video you posted seems to be that AH was an experienced display pilot.

@ASRAAM: some good points that got me thinking. The 5500' ceiling/limit has been mentioned quite a bit during this discussion. I would take as a given that all of the display pilots for that day would know that limit in advance, and would plan their maneuvers with that limitation very much in mind -- busting such limits would be apparent to any radar operator on the day and brought the kind of attention one prefers to avoid.

@rideforever: The above leads me to the conclusion that the maneuvers for this display were planned within that constraint, as well as all other limitations, and determined to be achievable within the rules for display flying. The orientation of the maneuvers tend to be based on where the display audience is. (I have some very small experience with pre-planning (I was assisting) for airshows at air stations, which included airspace constraints as well as "no go areas" on the ground).

@MachineBird: g-limits without a suit vary. When I learned aerobatics initially, I wasn't as good at dealing with 4g's as I became with more experience. The question you raise on possible g-loc will doubtless be pursued by the AIB. Hopefully there is enough evidence for them to arrive at a finding regarding that possible cause factor.

@Jazbag (and others interested): over on the Military Aircrew Forum, BEagle made some comments on manual reversion.

@CourtneyMil: that long post from your friend might benefit from being edited to all italics, or being in a quote box. It initially was difficult to discern "whose voice was on the radio frequency." I had to go back to the beginning and find the transition point from your voice to the beginning of your friend's discourse.

No one goes to any show spectacle motor race or whatever to be killed or seriously injured. You only have to look at the tragic accident at Alton Towers where kids went for the excitement and thrills of the rides?

I do not see a lot of difference between willingly choosing and paying to attend a venue where there is a tragic event or being a innocent person with no interest in the event who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

both are equally tragic and neither chose to be involved in such an accident
But people go for the thrill as in Alton Towers and its a difficult balance putting on a show which gives that thrill or is so protected that the spectator is filled with boredom and does not go again.

Pace

There is another important issue for airshow organisers.

If the display is offshore in places such as Bournemouth or Dawlish, how do they get the entrance fees that help pay for the event and to seedcorn next year's? Donations?

Think of what would happen with Fairford if it relied on donations.

@Pace:

Different risk assessments. I may be driving along the road unaware that there is any additional risk beyond the normal, while someone with a ticket to the show has at least had the opportunity to factor in the risk.

The Southend airshow was of course over water, fantastic viewing from the cliffs area, and free to get in.

Cancelled because it cost too much. You'd have thought the income just from parking fees would have made it pay, before you get to the increase in trade, but it appears not to be the case.

Other seaside locations would most likely have the same issues, too hard to control and therefore ticket, the public access. And by their very nature, paid airshows can be watched for free by people just outside.

Quote:

---

Hawker Hunter's final take-off 'unusual' expert says

---

Humpf! Initial acceleration looked good for a non-afterburning aircraft.
The disappearance across the horizon was about the same as with my old F-9 Cougar from the same time period.

@rideforever

He didn't descend vertically over the road, the vertical element was well to the north. And had he been descending vertically over the road he would have been further south over the airfield on pull up and clear of the road.

I am sure the aaib will be considering the total weight (mass) of fuel carried and whether or whether not this might affect the performance of the display routine.

I've been trying hard to stay of this thread.. but this takes the biscuit..

Utter rubbish. They died because of an accident.

And all the utter garbage about performing a display over a road.

Get real. It was'nt over a road, it was over an airfield. The aircraft ended up on the road by accident.

Some people seem be indulging in schadenfruede and making ill informed and grossly inaccurate claims.

The display was not over a road, it was over an airfield. People did not die beacuse of other people 'getting off' on entertainment. That is tantamount to comparaing air displays to gladiator fights .

The facts are, the display was organised and performed over an airfield. Such displays are tightly controlled and the pilots who engage in these take a huge amount of effort in not only planning the display but choreographing the entire performance.

It is tragic that people lost their lives going about their daily business, no one can disagree that, but stop with the blatant histrionics. The uninformed media read this site also.

Were the same people shreiking about banning movements over roads and bridges when Air Florida went through 14th Street Bridge ?

Were the same people shreiking about banning movements over aparment buildings when El Al 1862 went in at Schipol ?

There was no intent to ever put the lives of the public, nor that of the pilot at risk. This accident was exactly that, an accident.

Let the investigators perform their task in the professional way they under take these sad and tagic events and reach conclusions in order that revisions may be made predicated on fact rather than histrionics.

[/rant off]

Over and out.

Can't see where you got that quote from stuckgear but it seems pretty factual to me. Of course, you're right, it was an accident but I guess we have to wait and see why it happened. However, revisions would appear to have already been made by the CAA.

To me it seemed to pose a nose up then down just before he pulled hard back, could this be due to a stall during the decent?

Aha, and the road was part of the airfield ?
Did anyone pretend it was done on purpose ?

The airshow would have been carried out with in the boundaries as specified in the NOTAMS.

Ground Risk Assessment
 

Directly below the apex of a vertical maneuver might be the safest spot on the ground when things fail to go according to plan.

It's been pointed out that a local school is closed down during the event, but that did not prevent a crowd gathering nearby to watch as can be seen in photos from high ground just before impact. The toll might have been much higher if the Hunter wreckage came through that crowd.

While risks within the airfield and to adjacent structures are managed, we also need to include areas where people can be exposed to risk during all phases of maneuver.

A road closure would have done that. If a road segment is too busy for closure, then maneuvers have to be planned to reduce the risk at that point to no more than that with aircraft on normal approach and departure.

stuckgear

I've no knowledge or expertise regarding aviation in general or flying displays in particular and certainly nothing to offer regarding what went wrong with the Hunter crash that resulted in several dozen people killed and maimed.

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.

To stay away from this event. A person killed in a car accident is dead, no matter whether the driver was drunk, or speeding, or in a poorly maintained vehicle or one that ran off the road and killed a child playing in a schoolyard. The liability varies especially if it it determined that negligence or recklessness were involved. More relevant, at least for this discussion, is that any changes to rules or safeguards arising out of the analysis should reflect greater care for different populations. So, the rules and constraints intended to protect participants or spectators are different from those designed to safeguard others who assumed no specific risk related to the activity. To suggest that the killed motorists who assumed the (perhaps statistically-greater) risk of driving on a public highway therefore also assumed the risk of being incinerated or crushed by a jet aircraft engaged in a spectacle seems a stretch.

Willfully assuming the risk of an accident by engaging in an activity doesn't -- for legal or remedial purposes -- mean assuming all risks from any type of accident.

If that's not what you were implying, then apologies in advance.

Council Van asks "What is the fatality accident rate for air displays?"

The answer is there is not one. However in considering the chances of becoming a victim as a spectator, the reminder is the worst so far in history, namely the Sknyliv air show disaster in July 2002. It resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of the pilots and three military officials. In this instance the death and injury toll were confined to the spectators. What distinguishes the Shoreham disaster is the fact that it was those who were using the public highway that lost their lives. The attendant risks of an air display, for reasons, cause and circumstance yet unknown, were not confined to the areas laid out for the display. More for these reasons than any other, the public interest aspects of this accident will be of considerable significance in the aftermath to this tragic event.

Hairey

You have a very valid observation rather than all the pointless discussion on whether he was doing this or that in earlier parts of the manoeuvre.

its the point that he lost the aircraft which is relevant and I noticed that sharp and abrupt dip too.

his profile was smooth till that point so don't think it was a high speed stall or stall recovery pitching forward to lower the AOA.

I have a suspicion that something upset its smooth trajectory hurling the aircraft down with a frantic attempt to recover.

Maybe a failure of some kind

Pace

The Red Arrows were asked to participate in a Shoreham air display. They looked at the map and said no. If they, the most gung-ho band of go-getters, refuse to fly their fast jets there, then it simply is not safe for fast jets.