might as well stop talking about it then.

or people with a bit of knowledge on matters could try and discuss the possible causes and their own experiences - it wouldn't affect any AAIB investigation anyway. how about you just stop reading the thread and wait for the report yourself if you're that bothered? :suspect:

foxenburg - I don't believe hunters have an afterburner.

Go and read the military aircrew forum then.

I'll start with deep sympathy for those who are lost.

May I ask those who know, was this a loop - because to me it looked like a half-Cuban?

1/4 clover (Quarter loop into the vertical with a 90 degree roll, then followed by the the rest of the loop resulting in a 90 degree change in display axis).

According to the display plan, which MAY be Andy's, it was probably a quarter clover.

I am utterly confused by the BBC graphic originally posted by ETOPS as it shows the Hunter approached the airfield from the north. On other forums those who were there on the day say that he approached over the sea from the south with a low pass along the display line before pulling up into his final manoeuvre.

Tailspin turtle, thanks for the nice graphic.

May I suggest that the road was mistaken for the runway? And this threw things off a bit?

ABC news in the USA showed an amazingly clear video of the attempted pullout. It seemed like a bit of an accelerated stall. I wish I could post the video, someone else might find it.

From what I saw or have subsequently pieced together from the videos, the Hunter ran in along the crowd line from SW to NE at perhaps 200' into a pull up to the right, a derry turn into a long descending left hand turn over the Adur valley back towards the runway, probably a little further to the west than in the graphic. Then a pull up in to the 1/4 clover leaf that led to the accident.

DROP TANKS
 

The various photos and videos of the final crash sequence show two major explosions and flame bursts followed by two large black mushroom clouds. Almost reminiscent of a napalm drop. On the assumption that this was the cause of the large conflagration it would raise the question as to why drop tanks were used during a public display.

Below is the link to AAIB report 5/2009 re F6 Hunter which shed one of its drop tanks on to the rwy when landing at Exeter.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...KAXF_05-09.pdf

Miss Demeanour
 

Members should take time to read Jonathan Whaley's well reasoned piece on the MissDemeanour Facebook page. His experienced analysis of what will follow the disaster at Shoreham is more informed and less emotional than much that has graced this page since Saturday.
Jonathan's displays have always demonstrated the beautiful Hawker Hunter to a level which I have not seen bettered, either by service or civilian pilots.
His carefully constructed message reminds us just how planned and structured displays have to be, and also lays open the level of post display analysis.
Wisely stopping short of second guessing the inquiry, his contribution nonetheless fills the void in our knowledge of the preparation and execution of responsible fast jet display.
It is a pity that the BBC and other news channels did not take time to seek such experienced counsel.

There is such a thing as talking and thinking your way out of seeing the bleeding obvious.

Much of public "investigations" fall into this category.

Carnage?

The UK has some of the lowest Road Traffic Accident figures in Europe so perhaps they are doing something right.

So far as the safety of the public is concerned I think one must consider very carefully the different classes of spectating and non-spectating public.

1. At controlled displays where admission is charged.

(a) Paying spectators who receive a ticket warning them that air displays are dangerous.
(b) Non-paying spectators who watch from outside the controlled area.
(c) Members of the public who are simply going about their normal business.

2. Open displays where there is no charge for admission.

(a) Spectators who have come specifically to watch the displays.
(b) Holidaymakers for whom the display is a bonus.
(c) People who are going about their normal business.

The argument that all air displays are dangerous and the public must accept this can only be applied to controlled displays where people pay to go in, and only to those who have paid. It cannot be applied to people who are simply going about their daily business.

Likewise it cannot be applied to non-paying spectators who are not warned by a message on their tickets of the risks involved.

The safety rules set up after the Farnborough disaster are way out of date. The crowd line rule assumes that the display is on a remote airfield, which all too often is not the case. The ’crowd’ must be held to include all inhabitants of the surrounding area, so display aircraft should not overfly inhabited areas or major roads.

The ‘waiver’ granted to one aerobatic team which allows them to approach the crowd from the rear assumes that there is just one paying crowd. Where the display is held near a town they should not be permitted to use their waiver to overfly the town and put innocent people and property at risk.

In this incident the tragedy affected a small number of people and a small section of road. I hate to think how a mid-town crash might kill hundreds of people and take out a town shopping centre.

This quote really spells out the confusion I felt as I ran that - shall we say - main video at 12 - 18 seconds. It carries on into the logical conclusion of one hypothesis.


[quote=Tailspin Turtle . . .
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.[/QUOTE]


I think this is probably true, but you go on to say:

That is exactly what we do on this thread. Every professional pilot is expected to consider every detail of every crash that occurs before and during their career. It's not a mindset that can be switched off for the sensibilities of others.

G Induced Incapacitation
 

Now that we have had some chance to absorb the initial consequences of this accident, perhaps it is time to discuss possible g induced incapacitation as a causal factor.
Does anyone know if Andy was using a g suit during this display?
Was the Hunter's suit control valve functioning properly?
What was the likely g level reached during the initial pull up and how long was it sustained? These are questions primarily for the AAIB to determine, but some of the answers may already be available.

As a young man, for example, I could pull 4 g almost indefinitely and could handle 6 g for 20 seconds or so. Seven was enough to gray out my vision in short order.

Older pilots are supposed to have slightly better g tolerance, but things can happen as you get older that create surprises.

The video seems to indicate an active hand on the stick, but the surprising roll during the climb may indicate a momentary g induced visual incapacitation. It will probably be difficult for the AAIB to make an incapacitation determination. If that is the case then the recommendations will probably have to mitigate that possibility in the future.

It does appear from each video that the 90 degree (or maybe 135 degree) roll was started much before the plane was vertical.
However this only takes the axis of the fuselage into account. The flight path will be further reduced by the Angle of Attack, which will add an additional 10 degrees from the vertical, when pulling this sort of G.


I am sure the AAIB will be carefully measuring the angles involved, and taking into consideration any camera perspective or telephoto effects.
.

Hopefully they will be able to ask the pilot himself at some point ? I read he has been put in an induced coma so only in time to come will they be able to question him as to what went wrong ?
Very little appears to have been said on the state of the pilot and his injuries and whether he is likely to make a full recovery
Even if he does recover fully there is no guarantee he will remember the incident

It was amazing with the severity of the crash that he survived

Pace

The very first line of his post seems to suggest the opposite:

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.

Mine Gott, this thread really has got some real corkers for comments:

AFTER BURNERS: Not possible with the early jets of a similar type and I doubt if the CAA would allow their use anyway (On a civil reg) due to the fire risk along the runway edges and the risk of running out of fuel if they stick on.

DROP TANKS: The Hunter might be able to carry them when doing military ops, BUT they are not allowed on a civil reg jet unless you have a special permit for a delivery flight. In insurance terms they are regarded in the same way as a live bomb, which they can be if you press the wrong switch in flight!

EXPERTS: No aviation accident related experts I know will comment to the press or a forum without money up front and the amateurs talking here and in the press are just just playing with themselves as usual. A right squadron of winkers!

PS: It is legal to drop pure water on the public if the type certificate or approved ops manual has the dump system defined as water ballast, BUT there are specific height limits to avoid a knock down issue. I use 1000 agl for misting a fire (General wide area damp down operation to stop another flare up) depending on aircraft type and dump valves (You open the fill scoops rather than the bomb bay doors if it's an Amphib water bomber). It can even be done IFR if required with the correct GPS start and stop figures.
In the early days I won a bet with a rich chap (US air display, IFR approach due low cloud base) when my ground crew chaps bet him several grand that it would rain in a few minutes time, which it sure did as I dumped right across his GPS fix!

There are a lot of suggestions that the Hunter was too low at the top of the loop. They are too numerous to ignore without comment:

Based upon the videos I've now seen, I strongly disagree that the Hunter was too low at the top of the loop (any roll component included). He was, in my judgement, clearly not too low to complete the loop safely whilst remaing within the performance capabilities of the Hunter. That fact is very obvious to me, from visual assesment alone.

But here's a question, if you still think the top of the loop was too low: How do you explain the 'apparently' low pitch rate during all but the final instants of the descent? I say 'apparently' low pitch rate, but the more videos I see, enabling a view of sufficient of the entire descent, the more I feel confident in using the words 'obviously' low pitch rate.

Surely, if the aircraft was too low at the top of the loop, the pilot would have become visually aware of that fact as he entered the descent. This is, I think, a certainty, unless he seriously misjudged the situation or was distracted or disorientated by sun, haze etc. He might (should?) also have noted that his altimeter indicated that he was too low. Regardless of any of the previous, whether distracted/disorientated or not, he should then have increased his pitch rate far, far sooner than he actually did.

The only limitation might have been inadequate airspeed to increase pitch rate, but that limitation 'appears' to be unlikely and, in any case, could not, surely, have applied for the pronounced length of time during which the pitch rate appeared to be low.

...and, of course, there a many more possible reasons, other than pilot misjudgement/disorientation/distraction, why the pitch rate might have been low.

Later Edit

I cannot leave Fluffy Bunny's comment (see next post) unanswered, if only because it might mislead.

Fluffy Bunny wrote:
I acknowledged that possibility with my statement:

.