For several years we had a summer air show at Lowestoft with the spectators spread along two miles of seafront and the display performed laterally offshore. It worked really well. Posters may recall the 2002 incident when the Harrier went down with only a broken ankle to the pilot who, after ejecting, very unfortunately landed on his aircraft.:mad:

(I have no idea what that "censored" is about.)

GOOGLE IT!
 

No idea why some planespotters can't use Goggle to see if a Hunter can carry a drop tank (It can carry 2, but as any half blind mini pad user can see, the Shurecrash one did not have them).
Wiki might have the drivers manual with pages for the Hunter and flat Limo.

Looks like too low an entry and a high speed stall. The nose up attitude at impact was at least 10 and the descent angle was at least another 10 deg down, so I think it was well into a high speed stall when the canopy fired off at about 50ft.

Not sure on the instrumentation of this Hunter, BUT most fighter jets should have an AoA meter with an audio alarm and easyread gauge fitted (Often next to the Jesus meter).
So what I don't understand is why the driver did not pull the lower handle when the audio alarm went off, unless he was concerned with where to dump it.

Lets Roll mk 2:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/22/eu...ans-overpower/

PS: I wonder what the CAA will say about this one ??

This is the latest of the utter drivel 'in denial' posts.

Nobody is saying they can't fly over roads for God's sake!

It's the performance of some manoeuvres,(and particularly some elements of them), over roads and positions where spectators may be that is the question.

If the aviation community's response is going to be "There are too many roads, silly people in their houses close to airfields" then I'm afraid they are in for a rude awakening at the hands of politicos and the nanny state all too willing to spin disaster to their advatage.

A bit of self examination and admittance that yesterday should not of happened and must not happen again is needed.

This, along with a positive approach to this issue may, just may, save air shows that millions enjoy every year.

SLFguy, the reason people said about air shows having to cross roads, was because last night there were multiple people coming on saying how dare they have an air show near or crossing a road.
There were people suggesting that there could be criminal negligence and how the UK was a disgrace for having an air show near a road.
There were multiple people stating that the UK is a small heavily populated area in the South and as such if there are going to be displays then they will be near to where people are going about their day to day business.

Unfortunately moderators removed a lot of the defences and as such have skewed the debate.

I hope that clears up why people are mentioning the road, not justifying anything.

hawker hunter at Shorman
 

looking at the ambients of the day.
+30c and high humidity
the density levels may well have been a major cause of what happened.
performing actions in the cockpit by numbers like from the top of climb drop the nose count 12345... operate the controls to start the pull out and NOTHING!
airplane continues to sink towards the ground in a FLAT attitude... only seconds to impact with no response from controls. enters into the ground effect and ****
I lost two friends due to similar degraded density levels on a hot humid day at an air show in the Med'

Roads & Airshows
 

Just to clear things up a little, there are already rules about not flying over the spectator area or any manoeuvre below 500'
There would have been no "plan" to display over the road. Clearly something went wrong -either mechanical, pilot incapacipation or a mistake.
We simply do not know at this stage, other than we do know there would have been no intention to fly low over the road.

If we banned everything that had the capability to kill or negatively affect the health of others, we would have to return to the dark ages.

I never understand why everybody tries to treat aviation as somehow different and hold it to greater rules.

More passers-by are killed by drivers losing control of wheeled vehicles in the UK every day than are lost per year to aircraft accidents but it is the aircraft that are singled out.

Kids die in swimming pools but we don't ban them.
Kids die in dinghys but we don't ban them.
Kids die skiing but we don't ban them.
Kids die on ponys but we don't ban them.
The list is endless.


The only way to remove risk is to remove life itself. We need to accept that accidents happen and move on, not just ban all the little things which make life worth living.

All that being said, I do find it strange that under our current display rules, spectators who have paid money to come and watch a show have more protection than those with no interest!

Personally I would make all paid spectators sign an agreement accepting responsibility for their own health in a more dangerous environment.

Shoreham airshow map (possibly 2014) showing the aicraft display line on the West side, and not on the North over the A27.

http://www.shorehamairshow.co.uk/wp-...sabled_map.png

On this video you can see the pilot is doing a loop directly over the road:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ6WtkXHaxE

It's one thing risking your own life.

That road junction is literally just outside the airfield boundary. The traffic lights form the traffic control going into the airport. How can one fly an aerobatic fast jet routine and keep within the airfield boundary? You can't. The extended centreline to runway 20 crosses those lights so I would suggest it came down in the undershoot? As much to do with flying near roads as having the M25 at the end of Heathrow's runways. So what do we do about that?:confused:

"Air Accidents should be investigated by the AAIB (or national equivalent) and not by the police, unless there is a strong hint of criminal wrongdoings."

The police will treat every aircraft accident site as a crime site.

There is a lot of education needed in the police of what is needed in an accident scene and who has jurisdiction (oh how they do love to show who is in charge).

I think that it is difficult for the AAIB to take control off the police once they arrive at the scene.

I am aquatinted with some display pilots who fly the Hunter (and Sabre), can anybody say who the pilot was? Just initials will do if? PM if preferable.

The Daily Mail have published the pilot's name.

Looking at the Airspace Restriction Notice, AIC M 042/2015, the top of the restricted airspace allocated to this event is 5500'. This is also the base of the Class 'A' LTMA airspace above EGKA.
Would this upper limit have been sufficient for this particular aircraft or did LACC allocate additional class 'A' to EGKA on an 'as required' basis?

Perhaps shut all nearby roads and access during aerobatics

Someone mentioned Hillsborough and how football wasn't cancelled

No, but watching the game was changed beyond recognition

fmgc. I take your point but the rules are that the blue-light services -usually the police in a case like this - assume control of the crash scene. AAIB work under them but with full access to everything.

I don't think it suggests that the police are 'investigating' it, just assisting with collecting evidence as will always happen. I doubt whether the AAIB have the resources to collect all the evidence without assistance from other parties.

Some of the footage taken of the final moments is extraordinary, as is the willingness of some people to pin the blame on the pilot. Because it appears that as the aircraft pitches past -90deg, a stream of fuel appears from the RH droptank, and in its final moments there is a small uncommanded roll motion to the left.

I'll just leave this with you.

http://i.imgur.com/PqDuc3Gl.png

Wasn't there some mutterings in the Scottish media or from SNP politicians after the Glasgow police helicopter crash about who would have overall responsibility i.e. a UK organisation (AAIB) or someone in Scotland?

That is not the case. The AAIB have full authority with no judicial or police oversight. It is a terribly important factor in getting at the truth and is mandated in ICAO Annex 13.

Unfortunately many other countries do not adhere to this requirement and so the investigation is hampered by individuals not able to speak freely for fear of incriminating themselves.

https://www.app.college.police.uk/ap...jor-incidents/

The terminology is very much that the police should be helping not leading.

Taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...High_amend.pdf

I don't think it suggests that the police are 'investigating' it

Agreed. Police won't be investigating what happened inside the Hunter. They may assist in collecting some evidence. And probably write a report about the "road accident" part, as they would routinely do with any car collision. Could be needed for some insurance bureaucrats, among other purposes. They won't be encroaching on the authority of the AAIB.

I'm extremely familiar with the area, and that particular junction on the A27. Basically it's fast, open dual carriageway, and that junction is the only one for some distance. Apart from the north entrance to the airfield, there is small scenic road opposite (Coombes Road), also it's the only crossing place for cyclists and pedestrians (toucan crossing, I think) and is well-used since it leads to the bridge across the river to Shoreham. The traffic lights have been there for many years.

Incredibly unlucky for this to happen just there; it's pretty much all open countryside to the north (apart from Lancing College, the impressive gothic building seen in the background of some of the videos). All in all, a particularly unfortunate incident; let's hope there are no particularly negative long-term consequences for Shoreham or indeed airshows in general.

I had noticed the fuel in this image and similar, also.

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...est-Sussex.jpg

Police role at the scene
 

A few comments on here, one or two quite erroneous, about the role of the Police vis a viz AAIB...There is a clearly laid down procedure and taught at initial training to Police, on the roles and responsibilities..The scene and its security is always the responsibility of the Police. Its an absolute must though,that every assistance is given to the AAIB who have primacy in the investigation.

However, where there is loss of life, then the Police act for and on behalf of HM Coroner whose authority is higher than a High Court Judge.Some will be as good as gold and some will turn up at the scene and be rather pedantic..The Senior Police Officer at the scene often has a diplomatic balancing act to do..

This scene with its carnage and aftermath will not be easy to manage and deal with..so please understand there are many people trying..they may not get it right, all the time, but they will be doing their best...

Even that is not without risk. In 1980 the Red Arrows were displaying over Brighton beach and one of the aircraft hit the mast of a yacht. This is the pilot bailing out.

Air displays have an inherent risk. But is that not why many people go to them - to see mighty-machines and daring-do? Ever since Tony Blair's malign government there has been an aversion to any kind of risk. But I don't think you will find that many people will turn up to an air display in which no aircraft are allowed to fly, or a Formula 1 race in which overtaking was banned.

Life is a terminal disease with inherent risks - get over it.

Silver


http://aerobaticteams.net/images/red...ws-hawk-09.jpg

silvertate Your argument would have more weight behind it, if it was people watching the airshow that had been crashed into, not people minding their own business driving nearby...

First victim now named....RIP

Doing a loop over the A27 with slim margin for error seems unnecessary, and everyone else is paying the cost.

That is not a question of life's inherent risks but ego.

It seems better that people accept challenges rather than risks; the former gives a sense that you have something to gain out of it, the later that you have nothing.

I've nothing to get over Silver. In fact, I completely agree with you re the inherent risks (and TB's government).

The fact is that this will most probably be on the agenda of the council and local do-gooders. Questions as to whether the airshow should be relocated along the beach will be asked, no doubt. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the Shoreham Airshow relocated but no doubt things will change after this month's tragic incidents involving ex-mil jet hardware. Maybe it's time to let the current serving chaps show their 'derring do' in current hardware. The 'old boys' can stick to fast profile/plan view flybys more akin to a bad weather routine.

I've recently spoken to a friend of Andy's (BA colleague) and he said that he was off the critical list and on the 'serious condition' list. Fingers crossed for him.

So much could be said in sadness, but I'll restrict myself to this: I did a bit of an interenet search and ended up at Wikipedia (FWIW*). I could find very few casualties recorded amongst non-participants (by which I include spectators, whether official or unofficial), and none in the UK.

Is it really correct that this is the first time ever in the UK that passers-by, unconnected with the display, have been killed or seriously injured by a display accident?

MB

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._and_incidents

A very tragic accident for all concerned. I know damn all about display flying and even less about the Hawker Hunter. However, I do feel moved to remind some posters, who are clearly very keen airshow enthusiasts, that the people who lost their lives in this incident appear to be unconnected with the Shoreham event and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. We all know that entry into events such as Airshows and Motor Race meetings implies an understanding of potential risk to spectators as well as competitors - these parameters were exceeeded yesterday and questions will be asked and must be answered in due course.

My sympathies to all those affected.

Yes, it's correct.

@Aerospace101
....and the effect of that banking or rolling prior to the aircraft reaching a vertical position would be, as well as altering the axis, to reduce the height at the top of the 'loop'.

I'd re-iterate that all roads around airshows within a sensible range should be closed during the airshow as a result of this.

If it makes events like Shoreham no longer viable then so be it.

Shoreham in particular looks a ludicrous place to hold an airshow in hindsight, it's surrounded by housing.

Two victims named;

Worthing United footballer Matthew Grimstone, 23
Matt Jones, 24

I think it would make all airshows no longer viable. Duxford and Farnborough certainly.

I am dubious about the "fuel leak" . In such atmospheric conditions the compression of moisture in the air produces these mirage type effects quite easily. Presumably the settings of the control surfaces in such manouvres as these being performed would exacerbate this.

If you search on airliners.net for WV372, the very first pic you come to is of the aircraft in a climb at Biggin Hill on 7 September 2014. In that pic, fuel is also very visibly venting from the starboard drop tank.

It has nothing to do with yesterday's accident.

Shoreham is a small airfield in a built up area with rising ground in close proximity to the north. Not an ideal venue for an airshow, particularly when high performance aircraft are being displayed. My heart goes out to all those affected by this tragedy.

Just a comment from a relatively dis-interested observer across the pond;

Been to many airshows, love them, but it is time that minimum altitude for all maneuvers be moved to 300' or above. If you're not at the front of the crowd, you can't see that inverted pass down the runway at 20' for all the heads and bodies in the way. Your kids can't see a darn thing below 200' for the same reason. My interest is in seeing a plane and pilot's skill, not his bravery.

I was at an airshow at Navy Dallas decades ago, when Bob Hoover did a routine in a borrowed Mustang. Nice, relaxed routine at around 300' or so, 16 pt rolls and the like, very precise. Most of the crowd yawned and went for refreshments. The un-educated are there for smoke and noise, and some are entertained by the idea somebody might go "splat". That's a shame.

It always seems strange to me that airshows and other potentially dangerous / risky events go go on for decades without anyone batting an eyelid, yet as soon as there's a significant accident, loads of people crawl out of the woodwork saying such things should not be allowed. Not only that, but there's the immediate clamour for someone to blame, rather than to analyse and understand to what actually happened.

Life is risky and some of it significant, which we accept as a tradeoff every day of the week, so get over it. This a major tragedy and not only for those who have lost their lives and their families, but for historic aviation and much more. Let's have less of the preaching and judgment, please...

Like everyone else, I'm deeply saddened by this awful accident and as a family man can only imagine the devastating consequences it will have already had, and will continue to have on so many people, many of whom were totally unconnected with the air show.

Speaking as someone who previously held an RAF aircraft display authorisation and instructed in aerobatics, albeit not in the Hunter, I can also imagine the terrible effect this will have on the pilot himself, both now and in the future and my sympathy also goes to him and his family.

As usual, there are many theories and possibilities why this might have occurred and of course all this will be very thoroughly investigated by the AAIB in due course. I do have my own personal theory which I have discussed elsewhere, but won't be posting it here.

:sad:

Life is risky enough without aircraft enthusiasts' fantasies creating unnecessary and unwanted hazards. That is the issue here. It doesn't matter what the root cause is, the margins of safety were obviously exceeded. There is no justification for putting other people's lives at risk.

What makes incidents like this cause more virulent reaction is the now ubiquitous documentary evidence. It brings everyone closer to the tragedy of the event, so we have to expect greater outrage. It doesn't make the outrage unjustified in this case.

Sorry to hear that, Shy, highly qualified opinion is valuable in any discussion.


Open questions:

Are we sure that at no time did the flaps go asymmetric? This happening at the apex would explain the extraordinary variations described so clearly by Aerospace101 post #113. This, followed by the inability to retract them on the decent might just tally.

This begs the question - Would it be normal to have the 20% ? flap into the top of the loop but then retract for the decent because of the elevator issue?