PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Accidents and Close Calls (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls-139/)
-   -   Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/566536-hawker-hunter-down-shoreham.html)

bbrown1664 24th Aug 2015 11:26

Has anyone looked at the maps etc and considered this?

The aerobatic bit was carried out over the open land to the north of the airfield (low risk).
On exiting the move there is obviously a problem and he is trying to make it across the A27 to the clear ground to the West of the airfield.

Whatever went wrong though, due to the kink in the A27 at the point of impact, meant he was over the top of the road for a short period of time rather than crossing it at 90 degrees.

Unfortunately cars were queuing at the traffic lights at that time. The Vauxhall helicopter incident two years ago could have been so similar to this had the traffic lights been green instead of red.
RIP to those who were caught up.

dusty crop 24th Aug 2015 11:42

David a carter.

You seem to be the only one making sense in your post,well done.
For those who suggest "acceptable risk" as mentioned by 757 driver ,what nonsense.
There should be NO Risk to anyone except display pilots be it spectators at the show or people not involved in any way.
500 feet minimum and display only over water or zero population.
If not NO SHOW.

sharksandwich 24th Aug 2015 11:56

Oldlurker- re Red Arrows, yes, from West Overcliff Drive, the singleton does fly overhead over the crowds, and after the cloverleaf they do overfly urban areas, in fact part of the excitement is the overflying and trying to work out where the singletons have gone!
The point I am making is that these are state of the art planes flown by the RAf top guns, we do not want to see a tragedy.

wiggy 24th Aug 2015 11:56

dusty:


There should be NO Risk to anyone except display pilots be it spectators at the show or people not involved in any way.
That's absolutely impossible to achieve.

Edit to add: short of banning all displays...

Above The Clouds 24th Aug 2015 11:57


Effluent Man
For many years I was a Councillor and was involved with the now defunct Lowestoft Air Show. I had some safety concerns at the time but these were allayed to a large extent by the fact that it took the form of a lateral display offshore.

Shoreham is very different and offers a completely different set of risks. I think that had we been presented with a Shoreham type setup I would not have been happy to have gone along with the display.
So you didn't voice those concerns at the time but now after this tragic accident you decide too, was that to keep your Councillors position ? truly staggering some of the posts in this section of Pprune.

SLFguy 24th Aug 2015 11:59


As an SLF, a self admitted non pilot, were you witness to this incident
Not other than reported events, but that's irrelevant.



were you involved with the airshow
No, but that's irrelevant



did you know anyone involved personally
No, but that's irrelevant


did you know the pilot?
No, but that's irrelevant.


Was there any point to those questions?
Does the answer to any of them preclude me from opinion or comment?

This was a ghastly tragedy and the loss of the airframes themselves, and any :mad: concern for that aspect of this event is absolutely astonishing.

a1anx 24th Aug 2015 12:04

I've just had a fairly heated conversation on this topic with someone who thought it was ok because :-

(a) It had been going on for a long time (since the 60s)

(b) The pilot was highly trained and would be exonerated.

(c) People like airshows. (i.e. attendance was about 20,000)

(d) Accidents like this are very rare.

(e) Calls for a ban were irrelevant because they were 'after the fact'... the sort of meaningless phrase trotted out by people who don't know what they're talking about.

To my mind low level aerobatics in an old jet fighter is of a different order of risk to doing the same thing in a Pitts Special or a Zlin.
This was an accident that was going to happen.
I feel extremely sorry for the relatives and victims.

Charlie Pop 24th Aug 2015 12:07


To my mind low level aerobatics in an old jet fighter is of a different order of risk to doing the same thing in a Pitts Special or a Zlin.
Can you justify this statement?

FJ2ME 24th Aug 2015 12:17

Reluctant correction
 
I didn't want to post here originally and I don;t consider a lot of what's written here to be worthy of reply. However, for those calling for airshow activity to be demonstrably zero risk, then you are either being wilfully obtuse or have absolutely zero understanding of risks and probabilities. I'm afraid this is an unfashionable view in today's blame culture, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIVITY ON EARTH WHICH IS ZERO RISK. Ask an insurance actuary.

The correct and proper method for such analysis is to reduce risks to As Low as Reasonably Possible, or ALARP as we military folk refer to it. That may indeed mean cancelling the activity. The subtlety and judgement is in the word reasonable.

I'm sorry if this makes some of you uncomfortable, but those people in the Shoreham area over the weekend were statistically more at risk of a car-car road collision or being struck by a road vehicle whilst a pedestrian, than of the unfortunate outcome of the day. Indeed, those complete cretins who have profited from photographing and videoing the immediate aftermath instead of responding to the injured were at a higher risk being run over on the road or inhaling toxic smoke than anything else they did that day.

What I am certain will occur is a detailed and careful investigation into the event, its build up, and its supervision, and a set of reasoned recommendations by professional experts will be made. Anything else, based on what you read here, or in the red-top rags is just conjecture, including in fact this post of mine.

Rant off.:mad:

robin 24th Aug 2015 12:19


David a carter.

You seem to be the only one making sense in your post,well done.
For those who suggest "acceptable risk" as mentioned by 757 driver ,what nonsense.
There should be NO Risk to anyone except display pilots be it spectators at the show or people not involved in any way.
500 feet minimum and display only over water or zero population.
If not NO SHOW.
So, basically, no more airshows

There is no such thing as zero risk, except by grounding all aircraft and keeping spectators safely tucked home in bed watching a CGI-version of aerobatics or videos of classic Farnborough to see what you're missing

Please keep some sense of a proportion so close to this incident

cloudhawke 24th Aug 2015 12:20

Does anyone have any thoughts on how the pilot survived? If it was a stall (and wings level) close to ground that might explain it to some extent but there also appeared to be a fireball or was that from a vehicle? Just curious as vast majority of crashes like that would be fatal based on videos I've seen.

Ballymoss 24th Aug 2015 12:24

@ a1anx

Unfortunately, you have just trotted out one of those meaningless phrases!


This was an accident that was going to happen
So easy to say now that it has. I'm building my own picture of events through some of the more informed posting on this thread. Shame I have to wade through so much [email protected] to get there.

FJ2ME - very well put

a1anx 24th Aug 2015 12:25

FJ2ME Reluctant Correction


I didn't want to post here originally and I don;t consider a lot of what's written here to be worthy of reply. However, for those calling for airshow activity to be demonstrably zero risk, then you are either being wilfully obtuse or have absolutely zero understanding of risks and probabilities. I'm afraid this is an unfashionable view in today's blame culture, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIVITY ON EARTH WHICH IS ZERO RISK. Ask an insurance actuary.
Yes, but there is a difference between becoming the victim of someone else's risk and suffering as a result of a risk you took yourself.

BTW you mention insurance I guess the aircraft, pilot and airshow organisers were all insured.

Seafurysmith 24th Aug 2015 12:35

As one who was there I can tell you there were no road works on the A27 at that junction. Traffic management cones only in use to separate the through traffic from show traffic, No traffic lights in use, there are only Pedestrian Crossing lights there and they were hooded and NOT in use. Large signs telling you not to cross. There were many blue police signs in place warning people NO VIEWING! meaning no stopping, no watching, no photography on the entrance/junction both ways. I saw them and walked back to the beach. If anyone stood there to watch they were in complete contravention of the Police Signs/advice.


A very sad and tragic day for all involved and affected. But like others I do NOT want air shows stopped because of a rare and unique event, and I have sadly witnessed many over the years. Lets wait and see what the AAIB reports. Thanks to this Forum and some of the informed experience of others who have at actually done it at least its clear to me now why he had flap on as he ran in overhead me to display seemed odd to me then as he didn't seem to be going especially fast?

3rd_ear 24th Aug 2015 12:36

@robin: re Farnborough 1952, it's a sad coincidence that the organisers' response was to carry on directly after the accident with Neville Duke flying the nuts off a Hunter. That was a very different era, where the WWII mentality prevailed and the RAF was still content to lose a trainee pilot every week in a Meteor.

Again, in a different era, late '60s, I was at Biggin with family being thrilled by the show. The Red Arrows did a vertical dive en-masse where they pulled out at equidistant headings around the compass. One came straight our way - I lost sight of him behind the crowd in front - then in a second roared directly over our heads about 30' up at most. I was just a kid, so that was "normal" to me (if a bit breath-taking), but the adults at large thought it rather close. Could you see that as acceptable today? Don't think so, things have moved on.

cwatters 24th Aug 2015 12:37

Speculation... Some of the vids suggest that as he pulls up might have been looking into the sun. Not a good time to be temporarily blinded and unable to see airspeed.

Hawker 800 24th Aug 2015 12:39

[quoteYes, but there is a difference between becoming the victim of someone else's risk and suffering as a result of a risk you took yourself.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif ][/quote]

That's very true.

This, no doubt, is what will come out in the wash as potential changes to the way flying displays are conducted in future. In all honesty, I feel that the health and safety culture has gone to far in most cases but here there may well be room for improvement.

It takes a lot to keep these old jets flying. I just hope that they are not blanket banned from displaying as a kneejerk reaction in the interim. There are other solutions.

susier 24th Aug 2015 12:48

Photograph of cockpit section? being lifted by crane.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/l...latest-updates

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/485...2FoW%2FA%3D%3D

gawbc 24th Aug 2015 12:50


RiSq, I understand what you are trying to say here, but ultimately the pilot made an error of judgment of massive proportions by flying over the A27. And not just over it but along it. I would be the first to agree that he had a huge amount of bad luck but he contributed to and compounded that by making bad decisions.

gawbc,
I refer you to post 87 with the diagram of Shoreham for the 2014 display. We don't need the AAIB to tell us that the Hunter was flying over the A27. Are you suggesting that it was intentional? Because that is the inevitable corollary of your post.
(By the way I know the A27 very well, I also know Shoreham well having flown in and out of in many times (do you? have you?) so don't need that map thanks).

How on earth do you reach that conclusion. I merely posted this because according to RiSq he knows what happened - pilot error - how can anyone on here know what happened? You have no idea whether something happened with the aircraft or not, so instead of speculating why don't you do the sensible thing and wait for the AAIB to tell us what really happened.

There are lots of incidences where on the face of it it looks like pilot error when in fact it was some malfunction.

aox 24th Aug 2015 12:51

For anyone using the quote function, if it helps clarity you can get the person's username included, by adding inside the square brackets, after the word quote, =username, without any spaces

On some forums that can be done automatically, with a quote button next to reply, which pre-enters the quote in the reply field, but that doesn't seem to be implemented here.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.