Gnat down at CarFest

[StopStart]

I'm hearing that a Gnat has crashed whist displaying at the CarFest event. No news concerning the pilot yet.

[Paracab]

I've just read on Twitter that the pilot ejected, no word on condition.

[Dct_Mopas]

Not sure about the possible ejection. A few have commented about the aircraft being low level and inverted immediately prior to the incident.

Hoping for the best.

[Treble one]

Video now being shown on Sky News.

[Stuff]

BBC News have been reporting it as a Hawk but the twitter pictures clearly show 2 Gnats.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLU5Z7OWoAA9O7L.jpg:large

Fingers crossed for a good outcome.

[GeeRam]

Gnat Display Team based at North Weald :(

[peppermint_jam]

Reports of plane crash at Oulton Park Carfest 2015 - latest updates - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/reports-plane-crash-oulton-park-9771448#ICID=FB-MEN-main)

Fingers crossed for no casualties.

[just another jocky]

Awful news, fingers crossed.

[GeeRam]

Not a good day today as there has also been a Spitfire crash at Biggin Hill as well.

Quoted from BHHH Facebook page:

Spitfire MK912 this afternoon suffered a loss of power after takeoff and forced landed back on the airfield. The aircraft is badly damaged but Pilot Dan Griffith carried out a text book forced landing and is OK.

Reports are that Dan has been taken to hospital though, and judging by the damage to the a/c it would seem to be a lucky escape!

[Lima Juliet]

Biggin Hill...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLVBhrhWUAAeODH.jpg

What with yesterday's Blackbushe accident, this has been a bad 24hrs. These things come in threes.

White rabbits...:sad:

[airpolice]

From the official carfest.org website:

Air displays are also a huge attraction with the RAF Red Arrows and Battle of Britain Memorial Flight among the flying favourites.


The gnatdisplayteam website has been swamped and is not responding.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

This video on Sky News doesn't look good.

Spectators Film Plane Crash At UK Car Festival (http://news.sky.com/story/1528895/spectators-film-plane-crash-at-uk-car-festival)

[just another jocky]

Chris Evans, organiser of the event, has just confirmed on Sky News the pilot did not survive.

Condolences to his family & friends.

[Peter Carter]

From their website, the Gnat Display Team flew 3 Gnats: XR538, XS102 and XP504. All were used on 4FTS in the 70s.

[side salad]

Such sad news. I will raise a glass tonight.

[Alber Ratman]

The team have named the pilot on their facebook page. Condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Condolences to the pilot's family. :(

It is a great shame that in the immediate aftermath the BBC is quoting an aviation "expert" as saying:

Aviation expert Julian Bray said the type of Gnat plane involved in the crash had been around since 1955.
He said: "They had great ideas for these little aircraft but they didn't quite made it. The RAF did use them for training purposes but never for display purposes. They went with another variant. They sold theirs on, mainly.

There are multiple inferences to be made there, but ones made on totally false premises. Perhaps Mr Bray can take the time to research the use of the Gnat T.1 with the Red Arrows.

[Wander00]

I too will raise a glass RIP


Former Gnat Stude

[Pontius Navigator]

Ewan and it was a fighter with the Finnish and Indian Air Forces. In the latter case it achieved several kills.

[daylyt]

I love experts!:ugh:

[ACW342]

Expert. Ex=Has been. Spurt. = Drip under pressure

[Heliplane]

I worked with the pilot some years ago in the banking world and remember him as a thoroughly decent chap. Very saddened by the news and my deepest condolences to his family at this difficult time.

[Above The Clouds]

Also raising a glass or two.

But I do wish that these so called f*****g experts would stay under their rock instead of crawling out to get their 15 minutes.


Aviation expert Julian Bray said the type of Gnat plane involved in the crash had been around since 1955.
He said: "They had great ideas for these little aircraft but they didn't quite made it. The RAF did use them for training purposes but never for display purposes. They went with another variant. They sold theirs on, mainly.

[BEagle]

RIP the deceased Gnat pilot...

As for 'aviation expert Julian Bray', whose cellphone number is easily found by Googling, he is talking complete and utter nonsense.

Elsewhere it has been written that ...from the video it would appear that it was a classic flick and spin .. pulling too hard too slow...

From what I recall from flying the Pocket Rocket, 'pulling too hard too slow' would lead to heavy buffet and a high RoD. But not 'a classic flick and spin'.

The Gnat is a tricky little jet when things go wrong, purely due to the complexity of its systems. STUPRECCC and CUBSTUNT drills have to be instinctive, but it does NOT have any unpleasant aerodynamic quirks. Unlike the Hawk, it has classic swept-wing characteristics and needs to be respected for such.

Again, RIP the deceased pilot and condolences to family and friends.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Former Gnat pilot Peter Collins has just been on BBC TV saying the ejector seats would not have been active. Surely one wouldn't fly any fast jet without a working seat?

[cornish-stormrider]

gotta love the meeja......

dont care who they piss on in a never ending attempt to get the scoop and be the first.....

Today has to go down as another Oh, bugger. day in the diary. I would raise a tall one but I'm working the night shift so someone do it for me.

condolences to his family - hopefully they found out thru the proper channels first rather than hearing it on the news......

[Above The Clouds]

Surely one wouldn't fly any fast jet without a working seat?


Yes they do in the civil world, its all down to the cost of certification, spares and training available, mainly due to the CAA costs, so the easy option is to de-activate the seats, you still have the option of jettisioning the canopy and bailing but of course not as easy said as done in a FJ.

Not saying this is the case with the jets in question just responding to SSD's post.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, I wouldn't, and when offered the opportunity to do so with a Jet Provost, didn't. The Aircrew Manual 'Manual Bailout' advice is probably vague enough to permit flying without live seats (it is with the JP; I've not flown the Gnat), and the licencing authorities really don't like live ones.

[JointShiteFighter]

RIP to the deceased pilot and my condolences to his family and friends.

I am currently raising a glass. Blue skies.

[Argonautical]

BBC News have just interviewed a test pilot, Peter Collins, about this, who said the ejection seat would have been inert. He gave good reasons why this would be so. No spares for this old type of seat and they need regular servicing by qualified people.

[dead_pan]

One of the Gnat pair almost came a cropper at Abingdon earlier this year - poss pilot disorientation in heavy rain? Not widely reported or witnessed, a bit like the Reds gypo A-axis breach at RIAT last week.

[TOWTEAMBASE]

What happened dead_pan?

[Miles Magister]

He was one of my students, he was genuinely an all round nice guy and allegedly one of the best coxs Cambridge has seen.

RIP mate

[dead_pan]

TOWTEAMBASE

Pair did a low fast circuit of the airfield right at the end of their display in a biblical downpour. One of the pair appeared to lose orientation in one of the turns and flew towards the ground but fortunately pulled up - clearance looked pretty tight (sub 50'?). As I said not many people witnessed it as most had taken refuge from the rain.

The Reds naughtiness was all over Twatter last Saturday.

[thelad]

dead_pan:
Same aircraft i believe G-TIMM, also was Tech last weekend when due at East Fortune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mt7i9zCs-c

[macdo]

Terrible tragedy and condolences to the family.

I offer this for discussion, I was talking to someone who flies a former East European training jet recently about the ejection seats and he said that the CAA was very much against them being inert. His was live. There was a near accident some years ago when an inert seat in a JP was not secured and while inverted the seat and passenger rolled through the canopy. The pax had the presence of mind to release the seat and survived.

[Alber Ratman]

Have a friend who is an armourer and also has a close association with the team. He says the seats were live ones. Quiet a few of the JPs flying also have live seats. However would a Folland seat have saved anyone in the circumstances of this accident? I would doubt it. RIP Kev.

[tartare]

That video showed what looked like an extremely sudden pitch down... awful.
I've read online about the Gnat's hydraulics - but trying to understand.
Is it prone to sudden pitch departures because of it's short length?
Am I correct in assuming that the gearing linkage to the tailplane allows for c of g to be moved forward or aft to compensate?
Does it have an all moving tailplane, or elevators?

EDIT: found a T1 photo - elevators.

[highcirrus]

Are we looking at G-LOC here guys and gals? RIP to someone who seems to have been a very good guy and sincere condolences to his family.

[Alber Ratman]

Sure the hydraulic actuators on the Gnat are hydro boosted. It is a power assisted system, not fully powered controls. The Gnat is an intermediate ex military PtF aircraft as far as the CAA is concerned, making it less restrictive in airworthiness provisions such as the OEM support required if it is complex. Speculation on the reasons is would not be welcome by most on here and the AAIB report will be as comprehensive as any BoI would have been if the aircraft would have been still on the military register. But that leads on that it was a civilian aircraft being flown by a civilian pilot displaying on a CAA approved PDA.

[jonw66]

I was just trying to post the very same Albert but you put it better than I could.
My thoughts are with all concerned, a sad day.

[Fonsini]

That's my home area, and I was having lunch near the racetrack just a few weeks ago on my last visit to the UK, so this hits home - literally.

Looks to me like he had no turbine - what's the hydraulic dependency for flight controls like in the Gnat ?

Terrible, absolutely terrible.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Well, the BBC's "expert", Julian Bray, is now digging himself an even deeper hole.

Not content with having completely got it wrong about the Gnat being used by the Red Arrows and as a front-line fighter internationally, he's now saying that the particular Gnat in question was never intended to be used by display teams, and that the pilot in question got his civilian display certifications years after leaving the RAF (he's even using italics for emphasis).

As per my original post on p1 of this thread, the inferences that can be made from these two comments do no justice to anyone.

One can only hope the the moronic BBC keeps an eye on these forums and, for once, makes a good decision to desist from relying on this man for soundbites.

His website:

http://julianbrayrecessionbuster07944217476.********.com/

[Dan Winterland]

The JP incident report regarding the seat incident is here. https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422f44fe5274a1317000505/Jet_Provost_T3A__G-BVEG_07-94.pdf

[XV490]

Sean Maffett has just put the Gnat's record straight on BBC News (0715). He was also interviewed yesterday about the Phenom crash at Blackbushe.

Here's hoping Auntie calls on Sean more often. A sober, sensible, informed and experienced voice.


Addendum: I see it should be Sqn Ldr Maffett, a former nav (and BBC radio producer/writer/presenter). That explains a lot.

[alwayzinit]

Likewise Fonsini, our UK pad is in the village to the south of the track.

Very close to home in all aspects of the phrase.

Condolences to all those who knew and loved Kev.

[Corporal Clott]

Yesterday's headlines were stating 'RAF Ace' when today's is saying an 'RAF Career from 1998-2001'. Anyone know which it is, as it can't be both? Did he fail his OCU and leave?

I never met him, but he sounds like he led an incredible life - Cambridge grad, Boat Race winner, a short time flying Tucanos/Hawks (or maybe more?), a successful career in the banking sector and getting a DA to fly in a civvy jet formation team.

RIP

[Pontius Navigator]

And today in the torygraph A Stunt pilot!!!!!

[Background Noise]

tartare,

I think it has an all moving tail normally and elevators which can be unlocked for manual control. I'm sure BEagle will be along to explain.

And as for Julian Bray.... he seems to be referring to a different aircraft, for which he can't even get the registration right - and who exactly are the Yellow Jackets??

(Working link - JulianBrayWebsite (http://tinyurl.com/pexflh5))

[Wingswinger]

Are we looking at G-LOC here guys and gals?

That did spring to mind.

I had my own G-LOC experience in the 1970s while flying a Harrier GR3 back to base from a field deployment. After take-off from the site I had accelerated away, hard-turned starboard and reversed port all at about 4g. Pulling up into a wingover to come back for a site beat-up I blacked-out and came to as the nose was slicing down through the horizon at about 120 deg of bank. I rolled wings level and flew back to base at a sedate 2000ft and 400kts even opting for a practice PAR instead of a run-in and break. Nearly became a statistic that day at age 27. G-LOC is insidious and can occur at surprisingly low G. Fatigue plays its part I'm sure as does low blood sugar. It wasn't a great idea to go without breakfast as one of my contemporaries found out.

The other possibility is controls being snagged on flying kit. The Gnat is tiny. One didn't so much get into it as put it on. In the 70s RAF pilots wore internal G-suits underneath flying suits. External G-suits didn't come into use until later. I wonder if the control column snagged on something.

[spekesoftly]

Sean Maffett has just put the Gnat's record straight on BBC News ............... A sober, sensible, informed and experienced voice.Agreed, but he also incorrectly said that the Red Arrows flew Gnats until the mid 90s.

[airsound]

XV490 and spekesoftly - thanks for kind words!

Speke - you're quite right , I did say 'mid-90s'. I've no idea why - I had 1979 written down in front of me. Just shows that you (well, I at any rate) can say stupid things when live on the telly....

sean
airsound

[H Peacock]

The Gnat does indeed have elevators, but in normal flight these are 'locked' to the tailplane. Therefore, any pitch input will move what is effectively an all-moving tailplane.

Pitch inputs from the control column are fed to the hydraulically powered tailplane actuator via a Cam mechanism and Q-gearing mechanism. The Cam mechanism simply alters the rate-of-change of output depending upon the input position; the further back the stick the greater the tailplane movement per degree of stick movement. The Q-gearing mechanism modifies the elevator gearing dependent upon Q, effectively IAS. An electrical-operated feel trimming system is also fitted.

A datum shift mechanism is also provided. Due to the large nose-down change of pitch caused by the undercarriage lowering, the system simply shifts the datum position of the pitch system as the undercarriage is lowered, i.e. applies a small nose-up input. Simple but effective.

In normal use the resulting pitch input is feed into the hydraulically powered tailplane actuator moving the tailplane and locked elevators as a single unit.

The elevators can be unlocked from the tailplane in flight by a lever in either cockpit. The elevators are now 'manually' controlled directly from the stick, i.e. with no hydraulic assistance, but the hydraulically powered tailplane continues to 'follow up' any pitch inputs. Following loss of hydraulic pressure, or manual selection of 'TAIL & AILN OFF', an accumulator will provide a very limited reserve of pressure before the tailplane system freezes leaving a limited amount of pitch control available directly through the now unlocked elevators. Limited trimming is now only available by a standby electric motor which trims the aircraft by moving the tailplane.

Depending upon configuration, i.e. IAS, gear up or down and the position of the tailplane, it is quite possible to run out of the rather limited elevator authority.

Following a loss of hydraulic pressure in normal flight it is imperative that the elevators are unlocked promptly as part of the STUPRECC drill.

I seem to recall a display board at RAF Valley in the ground school tea bar with the Gnat elevator system layed out in detail.

[spekesoftly]

Without wishing to trivialise a serious subject, there's something very satisfactory about seeing a TV interview one minute, posting a comment on PPRuNe shortly afterwards, and then reading an honest reply from the man himself hardly ten minutes later! Thank you Sean.

[athonite]

While it's always sad when a pilot loses his/her life, there are previous posts flagging up the pilot's RAF experience, while the press claim the pilot as ex RAF, ace, etc.. I'm not sure you can describe someone as an ex-RAF pilot, or RAF trained if he didn't gain his wings and complete OCU, that is a bit disrespectful to those you gained their wings and flew on operational squadrons with the RAF, RN and Army.

As to display authorisation, I would have though it is not wise, even to consider someone for DA, unless he has completed OCU and a tour with the RAF or RN, on a similar category of aircraft, it simply impossible that someone gain the experience that someone gains through a career in the military. You simply can not purchase military experience. My suggestion would be 1500 on fast jets in a military environment before DA is consider.

Having looked at the experience of the six Gnat display pilots the breakdown is as follows:

2 pilot's with military career background and one a very experienced test pilot, really no problems here.

1 Pilot, RAF (1998-2001), UAS, IOT and some flying on Tocano's and Hawks, but didn't progress onto OCU, question previously asked why?

3 Pilots, only military experience is UAS or AEF (Chipmunks, Gliders, Bulldog), with PPL, CPL, or ATPL civil qualifications background.

It Just started to make me wonder if this a rather exclusive gentlemen's flying club, and in terms of it's charitable status and the tax benefits, whether this group is or was more for the pilots benefits than a public benefit.

[melmothtw]

Hi Sean/airsound,

I've done a few TV appearances myself (though I would never describe myself as an 'expert'), and it is surprising just how easy it is to 'misspeak' like that. And of course, once it's out there, it's out there.

Even with notes in front of you, it is a lot harder than it looks. Fair play for giving it a shot.

Best

[JointShiteFighter]

and who exactly are the Yellow Jackets??

Another name for a particular species of Wasp. :p

[Wingswinger]

Don't know about the Yellow Jackets but the Yellowjacks were the Gnat display team prior to the formation of the Red Arrows.

Yellowjacks - Royal Air Force Aerobatic Display Team (http://aerobaticteams.net/yellowjacks.html)

H Peacock,

Thanks for the memories. I'm still doing STUPRECC and CUBSTUNT in my sleep 40-odd years later!

[GeeRam]

Have a friend who is an armourer and also has a close association with the team. He says the seats were live ones. Quiet a few of the JPs flying also have live seats. However would a Folland seat have saved anyone in the circumstances of this accident?

I know the Gnat had Follands own seat design, but, I'm also aware that MB notified historic jet operators early this year that they were ceasing supply of items neccessary to maintain older MB seats, and as a result the RAAF grounded it's CAC Sabre a few months back once it's supply of seat parts had dried up. Temora have enough parts supply for the seat in 'Winston' for another couple of seasons, but that could well be grounded after that as well for the same reason.

[Yellow Son]

First, the main message must be sympathy for the pilot and his family and friends. Second, the 'experts' effect just won't go away, will it? Thank goodness Sean M fronted up (even though he's a navigator, for heaven's sake!) to put a sensible and informed view. (Greetings, Sean, not seen you since Linton).
Third - and for what it's worth - although I enjoyed the Gnat it had a poor reputation when I was training on it in the 1960s, with eleven serious incidents on my course of 12 students. It was quite unforgiving in some ways, with one of the nastier habits a massive change in feel following immediately after a hydraulics failure, amounting to what felt initially like seized controls, until you ran through the IAs. Not saying that's what happened here, though the symptoms are consistent with the tiny clip I've seen on TV.

[XV490]

"I did say 'mid-90s'. I've no idea why - I had 1979 written down in front of me. Just shows that you (well, I at any rate) can say stupid things when live on the telly...."

Well, it was early in the morning, Sean :zzz:

[Lima Juliet]

Athonite

Having bumbled through your post (and its disjointed words and spellings), I think I agree with you in part. There have been a number of "Gentlemans' Fast Jet Flying Clubs" that have come a cropper due to the inexperience or lack of ability of some pilots; but I think in this case we can safely say that flying a number of hours on Tucanos and Hawks has given this particular pilot a large amount of experience to draw upon for flying a Gnat. The Display Authorisation (DA) process is pretty rigourous to get through and so I would offer that he should have the skill to complete the activity as planned.

However, it is when it goes 'unplanned' that the inexperienced, or those with lesser capacity, come a cropper. This is where I agree with you about having a demonstrable and significant amount of experience on type (or very similar) before the grant of a DA in a fast jet like this. However, all said, even Chuck Yeager can have a bad day (and he did in a F-104! :eek:).

LJ

[LowObservable]

I remember reading this letter to Flight, many years ago:

1981 | 0034 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%200034.html?search=paperhanger)

[Yellow Son]

"However, all said, even Chuck Yeager can have a bad day (and he did in a F-104!)"


Yes, but didn't most people? Really old joke - 'How do you get your hands on an F-104? Buy a field in Germany, and wait". We said it for the Gnat, too, except the field had to be in Wales . . .

[megan]

Yes, but didn't most peopleIn Yeager's case, it wasn't the aeroplane that let him down, but his ego.

[gzornenplatz]

GeeRam The Folland seat ia a Saab seat built under licence. MB were asked to provide a seat but, when told what it had to weigh, refused. It's a copy of the Saab J-29 seat.

[Smudger]

And how is that incident relevant to this thread ?

[DeafOldFart]

Might have no relevance at all, but illustrates the value of not attempting to turn with little power available.... a conservative use of energy gives a better choice of field. I only have the public source video to look at, which shows a spin developing from a steep turn... a sad accident, for whatever cause.

[Smudger]

Despite my detractors on here I still believe this was a classic Gnat spin.. the truth will out... so sad.. I am no expert (drip under pressure yes I know) but I did fly the damn thing and I know what it's reputation was .. I bow to people who know better and can give a more informed opinion.. RIP Kevin

[Wander00]

ISTR the magic beam that when the gear went from "airbrake" to "down" cranked in x degrees of up elevator. In manual on an a roller (until they were banned) one worked like a one armed paperhanger, going between full power, electric trim, 90% power, gear up, re-trim, etc. All character building stuff. after that the Canberra at Bassingbourn was pretty benign, until we got to "crit speeds" and practice EFATO

[gzornenplatz]

I have watched the video of the Gnat crash several times and it doesn't appear to be a low-speed departure. Having flown the wee insect for five years (and spun it - intentionally) I have no idea whatever happened. But it wasn't a spin.

[BEagle]

Wander00 wrote: ISTR the magic beam that when the gear went from "airbrake" to "down" cranked in x degrees of up elevator. In manual on an a roller (until they were banned) one worked like a one armed paperhanger, going between full power, electric trim, 90% power, gear up, re-trim, etc

Datum shift was simple and reliable - a piece of bike chain attached to the landing gear actuator which acted on the Hobson motor to add about 3° of TPI (not 'elevator') as the landing gear extended.

Manual rollers weren't banned in my day - even as a pretty cr@p student, my QFI trusted me to fly one...at night...at Mona.

Once the Gnat had been fitted with a feel trim position indicator, STUPRECCC became much easier - the 'T' part meant that setting the feel trim to the safe/ideal sector was easy. 'E', exhausting the accumulator with the TPI at the correct value was important, because the standby trim (actually nothing of the sort - it was an electric motor which moved the whole tailplane) could only be used to increase the TPI n-u value from the point of failure - and it didn't move that quickly. So on landing (or a roller) you set the specified value, accepted the push force and then relaxed it to flare - which was much easier than it sounds.

"Use the s'by trim (whether by using the left coaming switches or, via selecting the mod 399 switches, the stick top trim switches) to keep the control column load-free and central" was the sage advice I was given.

So important were the STUPRECCC and CUBSTUNT drills, that I can remember them today even though I can barely remember any checks for the 8 other types I flew subsequently - except for the Chipmunk and JP pre-landing checks, that is!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Smudger's analysis chimes with me. Looked like a classic spin entry off a steep turn, for whatever reason. An all too common air show accident. Of course, it might turn out not to be, so we'll have to wait for the AAIB to tell us.

[Smudger]

G Platz ... Ok I respect your opinion we will see .. tragic though

[BEagle]

gzornenplatz, I concur. Shaggy Sheep Driver, the Gnat's handling characteristics are classic swept wing in nature - and absolutely nothing like those of a Chipmunk or Yakovlev 52.

[Pittsextra]

While it's always sad when a pilot loses his/her life, there are previous posts flagging up the pilot's RAF experience, while the press claim the pilot as ex RAF, ace, etc.. I'm not sure you can describe someone as an ex-RAF pilot, or RAF trained if he didn't gain his wings and complete OCU, that is a bit disrespectful to those you gained their wings and flew on operational squadrons with the RAF, RN and Army.

As to display authorisation, I would have though it is not wise, even to consider someone for DA, unless he has completed OCU and a tour with the RAF or RN, on a similar category of aircraft, it simply impossible that someone gain the experience that someone gains through a career in the military. You simply can not purchase military experience. My suggestion would be 1500 on fast jets in a military environment before DA is consider.

Having looked at the experience of the six Gnat display pilots the breakdown is as follows:

2 pilot's with military career background and one a very experienced test pilot, really no problems here.

1 Pilot, RAF (1998-2001), UAS, IOT and some flying on Tocano's and Hawks, but didn't progress onto OCU, question previously asked why?

3 Pilots, only military experience is UAS or AEF (Chipmunks, Gliders, Bulldog), with PPL, CPL, or ATPL civil qualifications background.

It Just started to make me wonder if this a rather exclusive gentlemen's flying club, and in terms of it's charitable status and the tax benefits, whether this group is or was more for the pilots benefits than a public benefit.

It's a bit harsh isn't it? Maybe he didn't finish because he felt his future lay elsewhere for all kinds of other reasons that have nothing to do with his ability to fly.

I know very many good pilots from UAS that chose other careers a few years ago simply because they didn't think they would actually go flying. Budget cuts etc tend to do that.

The last paragraph is distasteful - firstly even the very best pilots with
Mil backgrounds can crash and it serves nobody to make lists here but come on. In the end the process around getting a DA is well established and if there has been any "err" I think I'd rather put it down to people being human than being motivated by a tax benefit... One thing I'm pretty sure won't be mentioned in the AAIB report

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Beags, I bow to your much more relevant experience than mine. But Smudger flew the beast?

Anyway, I will await the AAIB report with more than the usual interest!

[BEagle]

SSD, high AoA in the Gnat leads to lots of buffet and a high RoD. You would need to seriously abuse the aircraft very deliberately to induce a spin - the topic wasn't even covered in our AFTS course on the aircraft. The closest we flew to high AoA at low speed was the '100 kt recovery' - "Boot the black*, punch the white*, set 6° TPI, leave the throttle alone and wait...."

Flying in the back on an SCT formation tailchase was the only time I ever saw that drill used in anger - when the creamie QFI became disorientated in the vertical. Fortunately the drill worked as advertised.

While the Gnat has a very complicated longitudinal control system (with which all Gnat pilots must be fully conversant), it actually has very benign handling characteristics. Q-gearing and 'Cam K' make it more pleasant to fly at high speed than even the Hunter 6. A lovely little jet!

* - refers to the yaw dolls' eyes - the Gnat didn't have a 'turn and slip' gauge.

[tartare]

Can one of you spell out what CUBSTUNT and STUPRECCC are actually checklist anagrams for?
Just curious...

Got it:

S - Speed below 400/ M0.85
T - Trim (feel trim) to the Ideal sector on the FTPI
U - Unlock the elevators, checking 2 clicks, white band and 'ELEV' caption.
P - Power (hydraulic) cock - OFF
R - Raise the standby trim guard
E - Exhaust the pitch accumulator (1.5 to 2.5 deg TPI with u/c up, 5.5 to 6.5 with u/c down), then the aileron accumulator
C- Check elevator response
C - Check TPI response using s'by trim switches nose-up/nose-down
C - Changeover switches (Mod 399) - select


Then maintain the control column at the 'load free central' position using stick top switches to set pitch attitude, control column to hold attitude with unlocked elevators. With u/c down before landing, set 3 deg TPI and confirm a push force reqired to maintain level flight; relax push force to flare.


And CUBSTUNT (for AC/DC failure):

C - Cabin altimeter cock to 'Static'
U - S'by UHF ON
B - Boost pump OFF
S - Speed below 300/M0.7
T - Trim to ideal sector
U - Unlock elevators (2 clicks, white band, 'ELEV' caption on)
N - Non essential electrics OFF
T - Transponder to 7700

[BEagle]

tartare, when I posted that in 2004 http://www.pprune.org/1391790-post10.html , from which you've cut and pasted my text without acknowldegment, I also said that that I hadn't flown the aircraft since 1975 - so the drills were my vague recollection....

[The B Word]

Pittsextra, I think that he is hinting at accidents like the G-TBRD T-33 one. The operator of the T-33 changed their experience requirements to that which Athonite alludes to for their remaining F-86.

It's on the AAIB website. Different accident, but an interesting slant.

I had a look at the accident video last night. In the last second or so, whilst in the left turn, the aircraft appears to roll further left to about 150 deg bank. I guess this is what others have seen and say that the aircraft appears to have departed/stalles in the last few seconds?

Still tragic for all concerned, whatever the outcome. He sounded like a talented all-rounder.

B Word

[tartare]

Jeez Beagle - ease up - no intent to offend old chap.
And I'm sure that if it's wrong - then someone will correct asap?

[XV490]

Leon,

Ref your grammatical comments to Athonite, isn't 'rigorous' the right way to spell that word?

(donning flak hat now)

[Chris Kebab]

Athonite does make a point regarding the quite considerable spread of experiences of the guys in this team, something that will almost certainly now be closely scrutinised.

However, the two experienced FJ guys are well know to many on this forum; I cannot imagine for one minute they would condone and undertake activity such as close formation (including take-off) and team aerobatics without being 100% certain as to the competence and abilities of those other "less experienced" team members. If there was even a hint of doubt I just cannot see them getting involved in such activity, why would they?

Regardless, it's a very sad day for all involved and sincere condolences go to family, friends and fellow team members.

[Pittsextra]

Pittsextra, I think that he is hinting at accidents like the G-TBRD T-33 one. The operator of the T-33 changed their experience requirements to that which Athonite alludes to for their remaining F-86.

It's on the AAIB website. Different accident, but an interesting slant.

Yes I hear you but of course everyone is much wiser with the benefit of hindsight - and given the pilot of TBRD I'm not sure what else the operator was going to say/do. Sadly there will always be a gotcha but my beef is that it is poor form to try and suggest that it was aligned to wealth, a private pilot and tax advantages and it would never happen with a 1500hrs military pilot (quite why 1500hrs makes you immune fuk knows!).

The current DA system is robust but sadly accidents happen. Its happened to company test pilots displaying fast jets, its happened to test pilots displaying vintage aircraft, its happened to World Unlimited aerobatic champions flying home and so it goes.... RIP.

[Voicemail]

Seats would certainly have been live...as you say, not a factor here sadly.

RIP

[Unusual Attitude]

I'm not sure if anyone else has seen it however there is another video somewhere which shows the footage from a few seconds earlier, I'll see if I can find it.

Edit, see here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11778058/Footage-shows-immediate-aftermath-of-plane-crash-at-Chris-Evans-CarFest.html

Hard to see what's going on due to the quality but it looks like it starts with the aircraft performing an aileron roll which looks normal, it then rolls to the left but overbanks quite significantly, looked like about 120-130 degs which is then corrected back to 90 degs but is pulling by this point, its from here the other footage starts and you know the rest. In the slow motion however in the latter stages it looks like he very briefly starts to roll to the right immediately before the rapid roll to the left.

Never flown the Gnat however is there a failure more which leaves the controls still boosted but lacking artificial feel?

Regards

UA

[fade to grey]

I'm surprised about those casting aspersions on the guys experience - even if he's only got as far as the hawk that would prepare him for jet aerobatics in this thing ?

The aircraft looks complicated and no doubt complex, I'd be more interested in recency and hrs on type - if he was working full time in the city was he very current. Or not ?

Either way it's a tragedy.

[falcon900]

Looking at the video clip again, I was struck with the same thought as when I first saw it: structural failure. Very difficult to make out detail on the video, but the aircraft seemed to get so suddenly "out of shape" that it is hard to imagine this could be achieved with only control inputs.

[Blokey456]

With the caveat I'm not a qualified pilot albeit with a little bit of UAS flying I can add that I saw the incident in person and was standing at a different angle to the one the videos are showing which gave me a slightly different visual perspective. Just after the syncro pair crossed over the aircraft was turning tightly to the left with a bank of maybe 60 degrees. I was tail on to the aircraft with a raised vantage point. The aircraft clearly jinked left and then right hard in quick succession as if the pilot was struggling with something. It looked odd because until then all of the turns had been smooth and I got the impression that something was wrong. Immediately after it dropped down and you have seen the rest on video.

My thoughts are with the pilot and his friends and family of course. Tragic.

[arra_halc]

I was there watching from the ground - to me looked like another high speed pass - I watched the pass with the 2 aircraft opposing then turned to say something to my kids and saw the fireball, so didn't see the final part of the run. What to me was notable was there was no smoke from him (they'd been running smoke on each of the passes before and his partner had smoke on).

The angles/trees at Oulton Park make it very difficult to judge AGL for someone in the crowd. I know in previous years I've watched other displays from different vantage points on different days and seen very different apparent heights for the same routine.

What will live with me was watching the other aircraft circling knowing what had happened until the first responders got there. (There was Cheshire Police on the ground doing displays at carfest who left within seconds so not long at all).

Organisers did a great job of ensuring the show went on - but also held a minutes silence and a number of other speeches remembering him.

RIP.

[Tashengurt]

I spoke to a friend who was at Carfest. She has no particular knowledge of aircraft but described what she saw as the aircraft going very abruptly and obviously from controlled flight to uncontrolled. I think "skidding" was the word she used.
As an aside; she was full of praise for the organisers who she thought dealt with the incident very well, especially with regard to all the kids present.

[FascinatedBystander]

Unusual Attitude:

In the early evening on the day of the incident, a rather clearer version of the first segment of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...s-CarFest.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11778058/Footage-shows-immediate-aftermath-of-plane-crash-at-Chris-Evans-CarFest.html) was out there on the Web. I can't remember who published it (Telegraph??) and now I can't find it via Google videos or You Tube.

I watched it half a dozen times, because of an attention-arresting "flicker" at the beginning. My impression was that the aircraft rolled rapidily right-left-right-left before it settled into it's final left-hand turn, the flicker effect being due to its more-brighly-lit upper surfaces being exposed and then hidden twice in rapid succession (total duration of 1 or 2 sec).

The video now on the Telegraph Web site consists of at least three segments spliced together, the first segment being now shown only in half frame (I saw it full-frame). Perhaps the Telegraph is still has the orginal.

[Above The Clouds]

I don't think it was pilot incapacitation, I understand the ejection sequence was in progress prior to the impact.

[JointShiteFighter]

I don't think it was pilot incapacitation, I understand the ejection sequence was in progress prior to the impact.

Did the canopy jettison?

[pontifex]

Just possibly momentary disorientation recognised too late for sccessful recovery. Or, perhaps rather unlikely, some roll/yaw coupling, although the only time I can remember that biting anyone was when the Arrows used to remove the fuses that limited aileron deflection over a certain IAS (can't remember what).

[The B Word]

Pittsextra

Completely agree. :ok:

I also join you that the DA process has the necessary rigour (UK spelling for the spelling-Nazis out there! :rolleyes:).

B Word

[BEagle]

pontifex, see this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/72761-gnat-roll-rate-fuse.html from 13 years ago to learn more about Fuse 13 and the Gnat roll rate.

[treadigraph]

Another short bit of video on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ar0KCMHGo)...

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Hmmm. Visible on this one appears to be vapor formation off the airframe at the point of control loss.

[H Peacock]

The aircraft may well have encountered the wake of the other aircraft to cause the initial upset, but it certainly didn't appear to be at low speed.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, possibly a control restriction. I recall we lost a twin-stick Jaguar long ago - being flown solo - when the rear seat PSP and seat straps (not covered by an apron) caused a control restriction.

RIP KW

[Davef68]

Unusual Attitude:

In the early evening on the day of the incident, a rather clearer version of the first segment of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...s-CarFest.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11778058/Footage-shows-immediate-aftermath-of-plane-crash-at-Chris-Evans-CarFest.html) was out there on the Web. I can't remember who published it (Telegraph??) and now I can't find it via Google videos or You Tube.


The one I saw was on Sky - a poor recording here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3wld4pvYvw

[busterbucani]

First post here. I have been edified by the recollections of old Gnat hands in response to this unfortunate accident and loss of life, have viewed the videos multiple times and have a couple of observations.

1. Common things occur commonly. Having displayed vintage jet fighters at airshows for years I believe pilot error accounts for the great majority of accidents in general. System or structural failure far less probable.

2. I believe that the videos depict a high G load stall and departure as the aircraft enters its first revolution prior to striking the ground. In the seconds prior to impact the aircraft starts to lose altitude and energy rapidly consistent with a high G stalled airfoil.

Stall speed increases in proportion to the square of the load factor. A 90 degree bank exerts significant load factor which is further increased by the pilot pulling perhaps 6-8G sustained in order to re form with the second ship of the 2 ship formation. Buffet, high ROD, and if not recognized by prompt unloading of the airfoil, evolution to full departure occurs which seems to be what I am seeing.

3. AOA is proportional to relative wind irrespective to attitude. An aircraft accelerating downwards through the vertical can depart if you pull enough G.

4. The other point is that due to the low broken layer of perhaps 2,000 feet or less, they were flying a low show which decreases the margin of safety tremendously.

Pilot error is the default diagnosis when the investigators are able to rule out structural and systemic causes. Statistically in the high performance jet airshow context the former is far more probable than the latter. Many vintage warbird, jet and piston, pilots are lost in this way.We shall doubtless see.

[BEagle]

The PPRuNe Military Aviation forum used to be free from the ridiculous speculation which appears on Rumours and News after every airliner accident.

But now the armchair theorists are crawling out of the woodwork over here too - I hope that they will be few and will be ignored by others.

The fact is that a Gnat was involved in a fatal accident at Oulton Park, the cause of which is as yet unknown.

There is no reason to doubt the skills of the late pilot or the professionalism of the team and it is disrespectful for anyone to do so.

Just wait for the accident report, please.

[airpolice]

Hear Hear.

[XV490]

Seconded...

[Milt]

There were some handling problems with the early Gnats which I hope were sorted by the my fellow TPs. Some of those early problems may not be relevant to the current unfortunate circumstance.

Following is an extract from memoirs:

During November 1957, I took the opportunity to fly some more of A Squadron's aircraft. First the Folland Gnat XK767. The Gnat was well named. It was a tiny 'go-kart' aircraft which was very nimble for its day. It had one bad feature which caused the demise of some early pilots. The main wheels were too far to the rear, requiring significant elevator power to raise the nose during take-off. It was vital that the elevator trim be fully nose-up and then extended to an override position to have any possibility of rotation for take-off.

The Gnat I flew had a redesigned elevator system. Instead of a trimable tail plane and separate elevator, this one was the first to have a fully flying elevator. This had given the tail greater effect but had introduced another problem. It suffered severe short-period longitudinal oscillations throughout its speed range. These had been recorded between +5 and -3 g at about 2 oscillation per second. Balance weights and other fixes had greatly reduced the problem. But not before one of Folland's test pilots lost the complete tail assembly at high speed and at low level. He was most fortunate as the tail pitching moment was zero at the time, thus giving him time to eject.

If anything I was over-briefed on the take-off problem to the exclusion of other aspects. On the ground, I found I could stand beside the cockpit and lean my head inside to be able to see all controls and switches. There was still the need for the trim over-ride. The control was a separate switch low on the right side of the instrument panel. This was badly placed, requiring a change of hands to operate.

I took care to set the trim over-ride and to release the brakes with the stick hard back against the stops. The extent of acceleration surprised me and in very little time the nose was pitching up and it was time to raise the undercarriage. The nose wheel door served as the speed brakes and there was a transient trim change as it retracted. I instinctively tried to dampen out the trim changes and found to my dismay that I was out of phase. As this was happening the words of the briefing pilot came back to me. "Don't try to follow the trim changes as the gear retracts."

The nose pitched up and down with each pitch more than doubling. Within two seconds I was alternating from a diving attitude towards the runway to a steep climb. Self preservation prompted me to pull the stick hard back holding back pressure. The aircraft damped the oscillations quite rapidly as I zoomed up into the start of a loop. It was easier to relax as I put more space between me and the runway and soon had it all sorted out.

Full fuel load was about 1500 pnds. With the V Bombers, I was used to getting back near the airfield with 10 to 15 thousand pnds minimum. I mentally added a zero to the fuel contents to prevent any preoccupation with the small fuel quantity. I had decided to be back in the circuit with no less than 300 pnds remaining.

I climbed to 45,000 ft over the sea and flew a few dives to go supersonic. The transient trim changes could be readily managed by the new flying tail and I found that any tendency to 'JC' would cease if the grip on the stick was released. This meant that trim had to be maintained with care.

In next to no time, the fuel gauge was insisting that I go back to base. I joined on a long down wind leg and slowed down to drop the gear. There was a large trim change as speed reduced which was readily accommodated by the normal trim. I noted that the nose-up trim remaining was negligible, as I selected gear down. Whoops - now I have the stick against the rear stops and the nose is still going down. Oh yes - I was told to expect this - use the over-ride - that switch down there on the vertical part of the instrument panel. I change hands and grab the switch, instinctively pushing it down. Whoops again - that was the wrong way. Now I am about 20 degrees nose down with the ground coming up too fast for comfort. A quick reversal of the switch and it reverts to being a controllable aircraft again. To me, that switch was operating in the wrong sense.

About this time, the tower called up to say that there was an English Electric Lightning joining the circuit with a company pilot on his first flight into Boscombe and would I give him priority for landing. I did a double take and called the Lightning pilot and asked him for his fuel state. He had over 1000 pnds. I was down to 250 pnds and now somewhat twitchy. The Lightning pilot defused the situation by declining any need for priority as I guided that little Gnat down on to the runway with some feelings of relief, considering the fuel remaining.

[Voicemail]

Milt,

Thank you for sharing - you flew in interesting times and there will be time for further discussion I am sure.

I guess that they (you TPs) solved many of the points that you mention as the RAF ended using the Gnat for training and the Red Arrows.

[teeteringhead]

Heard Chris Evans' few words on my way to work this morning - they were exactly right and to be applauded.

He was obviously very shaken on the day from the TV interview, but today - his first day back at work - he was very impressive. :ok:

[coley chaos]

Chris Evans I believe is a Robinson qualified pilot and his sentiments to the pilot and his family this morning on air were obviously hard for him to speak about. He has an air interest as well as car interest and so by default, as all pilots do, will have a fondness for all professional pilots who fly to entertain us.

I did have to put my mug down and share his sympathy due to his tone, empathy and obvious tear....

Coley

[Rallye Driver]

It was quite poignant at North Weald on Monday as Chris Heames ferried back the other Gnat from Hawarden.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/YakRider014/Gnat%20Land%201-1000_zpsnosdyf9f.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/YakRider014/Gnat%20Land%20-1000_zpsczhvw93p.jpg

Working in North Weald Ops, I have spoken to Kevin and the other Gnat pilots on numerous occasions. They always tried their best to fit in around our diverse traffic – from microlights to biz jets. Working in the Tower on Saturday when the news of an incident started coming through was not easy. Here are a few pictures of happier times...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/Gnat%203-1000_zpsjqhkdcc4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/Gnat%20Sortie%202%20Land%202-1000_zps7e4vdrvi.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/Gnat%20Sortie%201%20Touch%20and%20Go-1000_zpsklseblsa.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/Start-1000_zpsd5dd08ba.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/Break4-1000_zps86c2cf79.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/Break3-1000_zpsf406e8e7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/GnatPass2-1000_zpsaed33358.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/YakRider/PairPass1-1000_zpsd5a4ed77.jpg

RD

[tartare]

R/e speculation.
Please - this is a rumour network.
Speculation as to accident causes has no place in an operational context.
It may lead to an investigation going astray, or operational pilots focusing on erroneous supposed causes, unnecessarily modifying SOPs and/or creating additional hazards.
But I'd suggest speculation on a forum like this is entirely appropriate - we speculate out of a passion for flight, wanting to learn and understand, and certainly not to malign a fellow pilot much more experienced than many of us who has tragically lost his life.

[The Old Fat One]

I think the "thou shalt not speculate prior to the AAIB report", is a little hopeful and naive for an internet rumour forum is it not?

However, it is neither speculative nor insensitive to query an aviation fact on here, post accident IMHO (if it is...seems to me this site is pointless).

So, did this unfortunate chap qualify for his RAF wings of not? (not only a fact; a polarised yes/no fact as well).

If he did not...the inference that he was a military pilot is flat wrong and misleading. It should be rebutted.

I don't know the answer; hence the question. There seems to be some doubt in the articles I have read, including his obituary in The Times.

If he wasn't, I am not implying any follow up notion that his abilities were anything other than they should have been to undertake this type of flying (so don't imply please that this is a fishing trip - coz it ain't!).

I'm merely trying to answer a yes/no question.

[falcon900]

Seconded..

[falcon900]

I was seconding Tartare's post

[gzornenplatz]

A point, probably of no significance whatsoever. The two Gnats in the photos above, although both TMk1s, have a slight difference. The ex-Red Arrows aircraft has a Mark 4 Hobson unit (tailplane PFCU) and the ex-Valley Gnat in the "Mr Whippy" colour scheme has the more sensitive Mark 5 unit.

[Voicemail]

The Old Fat One,

I think....

208 Tucano then Valley Hawk course - left part way through.

Importantly,

Gnat for 8+ years, flown this display 75+ times.

No conclusions this end but fairly sure that the above are factual...if it not actual facts.

RIP

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

'Don't speculate; wait for AAIB' crops up on here and other places too. It's bollox. We are all passionate about flight and this is an appropriate place, a rumour network - of course we'll speculate (speculation doesn't include 'it was definitely caused by X', of course).

[pbeardmore]

LEVITT: So we wrote Freakonomics, and because it was deemed a business book and we sold a lot of copies, that made us business experts. And since we wrote that book I’ve been asked a ton to go talk to companies and give them advice. And what’s amazing to me is I could count on one hand the number of occasions in which someone in a company, in front of their boss, on a question that they might possibly have ever been expected to know the answer, has said “I don’t know.” Within the business world, there’s a general view that your job is to be an expert. And no matter how much you have to fake or how much you are making it up that you just should give an answer and hope for the best afterwards. And I have seen it teaching the business school students, that they are incredibly good — the MBAs — at faking like they know the answer when they have no idea.

So everybody hold hands and say "We don't know"

[spekesoftly]

The ex-Red Arrows aircraft has a Mark 4 Hobson unit (tailplane PFCU) ........ I don't think that particular airframe is ex-Red Arrows, but painted to be representative.

[Tiger_mate]

The confusion wrt 'wings' is not helped by the RAF changing the goalposts over the years. It was that the 4FTS course would conclude with wings and the 'student' would proceed to Brawdy or Chivenor for a Tactical Weapons Course also on the Hawk and then proceed to type (OCU).

All is now done in house at Valley; but certain squadrons have certain roles. My understanding is that 208 Sqn teaching is/was limited to handling the aircraft, not operating it.

To leave the service from 208 Sqn is strongly indicative of a student not attaining wings standard. Of course 'capacity' for a 'training risk' student can; and usually does grow with time. Failure of an RAF flying training course need not condemn anybody as unfit to fly for life.

The QFI who chopped Prince Andrew (Sea Harrier pilot desig) from the FJ pipeline was overheard as saying (upon hearing that Andrew had Sea King Captaincy) that it showed that if you throw enough money at someone you can turn them into an aircraft Captain.

Whatever the facts are; there is a widow and daughter missing a very special man. .... and I have often heard talk of the best aircraft, that they have the character of a sports car on a wet day; and must be treated as such - less they be unforgiving. Last weekend will long be remembered on the air show circuit for all the wrong reasons; and the lessons learnt will be little consolation to the loved ones left behind.

[airsound]

G TIMM potted history:
Gnat G-TIMM was actually XP504, the oldest airworthy Gnat in existence - it was the fourth production machine. Served at 4 FTS, RAF Valley, and then 1 School of Tech Trg, Halton as ground instructional airframe..
Sold Nov 91, restored to flying condition at Leavesden. First flt Nov 92 to Cranfield. Acquired by Kennet in 1993
Early Red Arrows colours, Ray Hanna’s ac - and had the smoke system used by the Red Arrows.

airsound

[P6 Driver]

Seen in happier times. Biggin Hill, 2010.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/560/20290006931_d65f77c3f3_z.jpg

[Heliport]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

- of course we'll speculate


We?

There's a big difference between informed speculation by the professionals here who fly or have flown mil jets and uninformed speculation by others.

Why not just read and learn. :confused:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Heliport gains this week's pompous post prize. Wind your neck in, read, and YOU might learn something you patronising arrogant so and so!

I was tempted to be very rude there but managed to contain myself.

[mark25787]

Does the fact that the Gnat was able to return to its home base mean that the AAIB don't feel it's a mechanical issue with the type of aircraft?
Was wondering if the remaining Gnat may have done a flypast as a tribute on Sunday but thought that as well as it being emotional for the pilot that the aircraft may have been grounded.

[212man]

Does the fact that the Gnat was able to return to its home base mean that the AAIB don't feel it's a mechanical issue with the type of aircraft?

No...it means nothing.

The AAIB is not a regulator, and if you think of all the civil aircraft accidents that take place, how many of them result in a grounding in the immediate aftermath? Those that do are either self imposed by the operators, or by the regulator following a series of similar incidents/accidents.

[ShotOne]

"..inference he was a military pilot flat wrong...should be rebutted"? Really, TOFO? Why's that? How does whether or not he was awarded his wings bear on this accident at all?

Not long ago another pilot of a single engined jet tragically lost his life in an unexplained display crash. I don't recall any of this delving into his background -and if there had been, I suspect it would have provoked a furious response. Why is there a different set of rules here?

[NutLoose]

G TIMM potted history:
Gnat G-TIMM was actually XP504, the oldest airworthy Gnat in existence - it was the fourth production machine. Served at 4 FTS, RAF Valley, and then 1 School of Tech Trg, Halton as ground instructional airframe..
Sold Nov 91, restored to flying condition at Leavesden. First flt Nov 92 to Cranfield. Acquired by Kennet in 1993
Early Red Arrows colours, Ray Hanna’s ac - and had the smoke system used by the Red Arrows.

airsound

Small world isn't it, during my course at Halton we removed a lot of the Gnats and they were dumped wingless down the airfield, originally in the workshops they had the nose bays filled with barbed wiring metal stakes to balance them, we pulled the wings off and dumped them outside, the officer in charge then had us stack the wings upside down as he thought the summer breeze may create lift and they would fly away lol.... The word plonker was bandied about.
We also had to destroy a load of complete Avon engines so they could be sold as scrap and couldn't be used again, we had large GS screwdrivers, hacksaws and some sledgehammers, I remember it was bloody hard work to damage one..

[Alber Ratman]

The Gnats Display Team operate under CAA authority and within the regulations defined under CAP 563.


https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20632%20Permit-to-Fly%20Ex-Military%20Aircraft.pdf


Covers all facets or links to others that are greater in depth. Certainly covers experience, currency, maintenance, equipment's, organisation, auditing, etc. Even been updated on the fact that it is now legal to cover some costs by passenger payments.

[LOMCEVAK]

Busterbucani,

Stall speed increases with the square root of the load factor - I am sure that your error was just a typo! However, this is a simplified approximation that assumes that the lift curve slope remains constant at all speeds. In reality it does not. As Reynolds number (in essence TAS) increases, Cl max increases and thus the actual stall speed at greater than 1g is less than determined by the above relationship. This tends to be the case at low altitudes. However, as Mach number increases, Cl max reduces and so at high altitude the actual stall speed will be greater than the theoretical value calculated as above. This is also exacerbated by the fact that as altitude increases, the IAS for a given EAS increases. So, overall not as simple as you have implied.

My lack of comment as to the motion of the Gnat as shown in the videos is totally intentional! This is based on a few hours in the Gnat and significant experience of spinning and accelerated stalling in swept wing aircraft.

[JointShiteFighter]

Heliport gains this week's pompous post prize. Wind your neck in, read, and YOU might learn something you patronising arrogant so and so!

I was tempted to be very rude there but managed to contain myself.

There is a valid point hidden in the patronising post, though. Those with fast-jet hours in the log book are in a much better position to speculate than those without.

I wholeheartedly agree that it could have been worded a lot better than it was.

Equally, I agree with BEagles sentiment some posts back. There's a grieving family and grieving friends somewhere out there and pointing the finger at this point isn't helping them.

[smarthawke]

@ Milt in Post #108

You say the nose wheel door acted as the air brake on the Gnat?

My involvement with the Gnat revolves only as a young spectator and later as a Halton Apprentice (plenty of Gnats to work on in 1984 during the 'airfield' phase).

I thought it was the main gear that extended partially to allow the main gear 'doors' (fairings would be a better term) to act as air brakes - or am I mistaken?

Perhaps it was all three gear doors?

[Flugplatz]

I think Busterbucani has it right: 'high-speed' stall followed by not enough height to recover (the biggest airshow killer of them all).

Condolences to family and friends. the Gnat team are one of my favourite airshow acts, reminding me of the first time I saw a real jet (Red Arrows Gnat parked at the entrance to Brighton Pier in the mid-70s). I expect it was one of those detailed mock-ups like the later Hawk that used to do the rounds with the RAF Recruiting Team.

The only jets I had ever seen in real life were airliners like the Trident; that Gnat looked like a spaceship from the future as I was probably about 7 or 8 at the time!

Very grateful that the Gnat Display Team kept them flying :ok:; I for one don't care how rich they are or what their individul motivations may be.:=

Flug

[Hangarshuffle]

Don't ban or censure speculation, unsettling though it is to many aircrew - its a small time internet based public forum (PPrune ffs-not The Times)- anyone can post here. We need free speech (and thought) as much as ever within the (largely controlled) media. People are right to ask hard questions about this weekend. They would be asking a lot more if this aircraft had come down upon the general public.
I spell it out- a very old ex military aircraft yet again, doing a display and flying over the general populace comes to grief, and yet again my question on Prune is how necessary and safe is this exactly?
I say again; fortunate enough that nobody was underneath the aircraft when it came to grief, considering it was a mass outdoor event within densely populated England.
And incredible though it seems to some pruners, please spare a single thought for the fire crews, the medical staff and the police in their efforts to deal with and control the unpleasant aftermath of the crash.

[Wrathmonk]

ShotOne said:

How does whether or not he was awarded his wings bear on this accident at all?

It doesn't (yet) - however, and without knocking his undoubted subsequent skillset, if he didn't gain his (permanent) wings (i.e. CR/6 mths on 1st sqn [or whatever the regs in force were for FJ sqns at the turn of the century]) he shouldn't be referred to as a 'military pilot' or 'former RAF pilot'. It's misleading. Before you know it we'll be referring to Prince Edward / Earl of Wessex as a former Royal Marine.....

Purely my viewpoint and no disrespect to the individual concerned. It appears to me to be poor media reporting (or media being misled).

At least it will be an independent inquiry and the 'truth will out' in a decent timeframe.

[JointShiteFighter]

and yet again my question on Prune is how necessary and safe is this exactly?

I am probably not the right person to debate the necessities with, as I hate the thought of aircraft in museums. They were made to fly!!!!

As for safety, it can be done very safely and with minimal risk. Look no further than the RAF BBMF. Their record is as good as it is because they have a team of dedicated, highly trained and experienced engineers to give the airframes all of the TLC they will ever need from the moment they are shut down. Yes, it's expensive.... but so is anything else that's worth doing. If safety was a big issue then the Flight would be disbanded and millions would be saved.

[The Old Fat One]

"..inference he was a military pilot flat wrong...should be rebutted"? Really, TOFO? Why's that? How does whether or not he was awarded his wings bear on this accident at all?

no idea mate...a point I made crystal clear in my post.

It's a simple question...was he a military pilot or was he not? Since you seem to want to pick a fight, let me spell it out again...I make no inference about the accident whatsoever. My beef is with lazy, inaccurate and complacent journalism.

Hopefully you can get your head round that without looking for a debate when there is none to be had.

PS

Voicemail, thanks for the reply

[Right Stuff]

I can clear one thing up - Kev was not chopped from fast jets; he left of his own volition. I met him recently in a city context and he was extremely helpful and charismatic; a very impressive man.

I also feel speculation is fair game in/on this forum

[busterbucani]

Touche, Lomcevak, spellcheck is the bane of my earthly existence.

At least you were paying attention and double checked my assertion with memory perhaps aided by a surreptitious mouse click.

You did rather digress however because the subject at hand is a Gnat traveling at 350 KIAS give or take on the deck pulling hard G to reform with the 2 ship formation. You then concurred with me by saying "This tends to be the case at low altitudes." Therefore mach numbers and high altitudes are of no relevance here.

You say "So, overall not as simple as you have implied." Actually dear boy, it is.

Anyone with any tactical swept wing fighter time will have on their first dual sortie been instructed to pull to the buffet, then through the buffet into full departure before recovering several thousand feet below. A 6-8G pull in a Gnat such as the one shown would easily lead to a high speed high G load departure that I believe we are seeing. It is perhaps the single most classic and tragic cause of repeated airshow accidents in high performance aircraft from 51's to swept wing vintage jets.

And yet many pilots still do not understand that they can stall a fast jet or other aircraft doing 350 KIAS in a bank but level attitude (or any other configuration) by pure G loading. You have demonstrated that you understand this as do others here.

I have several hundred hours in MiG 15 and 17F aircraft (and less time in training aircraft such as the L39 and Dornier Alpajet), a modest background but you will allow of some relevance here. Ditto for the P51 which will also depart with a 6-8G pull in the right conditions. I have zero time in the lovely, iconic and timeless Folland Gnat which is why I have learned much from this discussion. I mourn the lost aircraft as I mourn its pilot.

If I am accused of being an "armchair theorist(s) (are) crawling out of the woodwork" then I stand guilty as charged. The brittle pomposity apparent in these accusations is as unhelpful as it is unattractive.

I have lost a dozen or so close friends and acquaintances in air show crashes in the USA over the last 15-20 years in P51's, F4U's, and F86's. Most to pilot error. I merely seek to understand this accident as do others here.

"There is no reason to doubt the skills of the late pilot or the professionalism of the team and it is disrespectful for anyone to do so.

Just wait for the accident report, please."

Oh My Gawd really??

The team seems professional and the pilot had time in training aircraft, the turboprop Tucano and the Hawk. Ironically his best experience was probably flying the Gnat for what, 8-10 years? This analysis is not disrespectful at all. There seem to be a surfeit of precious old vicars lurking on this thread. Humility dictates that we respect their opinions as they should respect ours.

Do forgive my temerity as a new poster but this is a good thread and a robust exchange of views should be defended from the tyranny of petty minds.


“I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things. ”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry


Tragic accident to be sure, but flying vintage swept wing fighters at airshows is an intoxicating if unforgiving mistress!

[Lima Juliet]

There seem to be a surfeit of precious old vicars lurking on this thread. Humility dictates that we respect their opinions as they should respect ours.

Do forgive my temerity as a new poster but this is a good thread and a robust exchange of views should be defended from the tyranny of petty minds.

Well said...:D

[BEagle]

Regrettably, some posters only come out of the woodwork to post about aircraft accidents - there's one, for example, whose 41 posts are 100% about accidents.

That's hardly 'speculation' - it's obsession.

As for Anyone with any tactical swept wing fighter time will have on their first dual sortie been instructed to pull to the buffet, then through the buffet into full departure before recovering several thousand feet below.That would be a frankly absurd way of teaching a pilot new to type.....:(

[Unusual Attitude]

I have to confess I tend to lurk and don't post much any more however I have taken an interest in this one as its rather close to home for a variety of reasons which I wont go into.

I've personally avoided speculating as the only jet I ever qualified on was the JP which is nothing to shout about, as part of the conversion onto type we were of course made aware of high speed stalls and even for civilian flying had to demo a pull to the buffet which makes me find the following statement very odd:

And yet many pilots still do not understand that they can stall a fast jet or other aircraft doing 350 KIAS in a bank but level attitude (or any other configuration) by pure G loading. You have demonstrated that you understand this as do others here.

I would expect anyone tasked with actually fighting an aircraft to have a very thorough understanding of aerodynamics, AoA limitations and the results of exceeding them regardless of the speed at the time, indeed this is another part covered in the DA process.

As for the media, I've personally had quite a bit of exposure to them over the last 12 months having been described as everything from "Local Top Gun", "Lewis Hamilton of the skies", neither of which I am, and my aircraft referred to as a "Jet" multiple times despite having a ruddy great spinning thing on the front.

Alas Journo's nowadays are more interested in selling papers than being factually correct and the latter is often disregarded in favour of the former. Please therefore take any references to "RAF Ace" etc with a pinch of salt, having met Kev a few times however and knowing of his background outside of flying I've no doubt that had he put his mind to it he would have become all of the things the media described him as.

Regards

UA

[P6 Driver]

Content removed

[Wander00]

Terribly sad accident, but reminds me of a day in 1966 in Aunty Betty's Fun Jet: turning final at Valley, wind blowing towards the runway. W tightens turn, jet starts going down like a lift. Rhodesian accent from the back "I have control". Unloads, rolls wings level and overshoots. Voice from the back "If you had been on your own you would have been f@ck1ng well dead". Thanks Vic.

[LOMCEVAK]

Busterbucani,

I appreciate your reply and stand guilty as charged of thread creep! However, if there are to be on-going discussions of accelerated stalling then a knowledge of the high altitude aspects, even if not relevant here, is a useful education. My use of the phrase 'not as simple as you implied' related to the complexities of stalling and not this accident. I would like to respond to a few of your points.

When converting to a swept wing jet a pilot will not practise taking it to the point of departure unless that is a cleared manoeuvre that is approved in the Flight Manual. I do not have a Gnat Manual to hand so cannot comment on that type but, for example, the Hunter was not cleared for intentional departures in service (although it was when specially instrumented in the flight test world).

Many (most?) display accidents, in piston engined aircraft, straight wing and swept wing jets, occur because there is insufficient height to execute a safe recovery from the aircraft's pitch and roll attitude. For example, being too low at the top of a loop, rolling with too low a nose attitude such that the nose drops to an irrecoverable dive angle.

The P-51 is one aircraft type that does have accelerated stall characteristics that can result in an inadvertent departure during a display. It has an essentially laminar flow wing which results in a very rapid right roll at the point of stall with no prior buffet (although a P-51C that I have flown did have a very narrow buffet margin when compared to the Ds that I have flown); in essence, it has no stall warning. The other type that I have displayed that has the same problem (albeit with not quite such a high roll rate at departure) is the Harvard/SNJ/T6. Most other aircraft, and especially swept wing ones including the Gnat, have some buffet margin to warn of the accelerated stall and in many aircraft the accelerated stall characteristics are actually quite benign.

The swept wing jets that I have departed (Hunter, Alpha Jet, F-16, F-18, Hawk intentionally, Tornado unintentionally!) invariably have a very rapid yaw off at the point of departure, often simultaneously with a roll off and pitch up. In the accident video it appears to me that the final motion that can be seen is a left roll from approximately 90 deg to around 120 - 130 deg bank angle with a simultaneous nose up pitch rate that was present before the roll occurred. I cannot see any noticeable yaw but that does not mean that there isn't a yaw rate developing. Draw your own conclusions, please.

Until the video is analysed fully in order to ascertain airspeed and pitch rate no-one can estimate the normal acceleration that the aircraft had just prior to impact. From memory I believe that the g limit in the Gnat was +7g (although I may be wrong) and the display sequence notes on the team's website mention 6g turns. Therefore, I think that any comments about +8g are not appropriate.

Unfortunately, there is one comment that I will take you to task about, your comment "I mourn the lost aircraft as I mourn its pilot". I find that extremely distasteful and disrespectful to his wife, family and friends. I fail to see how any sentient being could feel that way.

[NutherA2]

Everyone who flew the Gnat remembers the STUPRECC (or STUPRE for us older pre 399 generation) and hydraulic failure at any stage of flight should not have caused any serious embarrassment to a Valley QFI. It should be noted, however, that Mr. Petter’s pocket rocket could present one or two less well known and unrehearsed surprises. In 1967 & 68, during my tour at 4 FTS, I remember two occasions where QFIs were faced with malfunctions making the aircraft uncontrollable.

1. Gordon Allin’s longitudinal control ran away completely nose up and stayed there, causing the aircraft to repeatedly pitch up to the near vertical until apparently stalling into a dive; control inputs having no effect, he and his student ejected.

2. Al Holyoake’s Gnat decided of its own volition to enter a continuous roll and couldn’t be persuaded to stop. Al and his student (Dave Moss?) ejected.

I don’t know of any other instances of Hobson Motor or PFCU failures, but I think either of these, had they occurred at low level, particularly in a banked attitude might have left insufficient time to abandon the aircraft.

[HarryMann]

Has G-Loc been discussed ?

[RetiredBA/BY]

No, but it does look like he was turning very hard.
All these horror stories of the Gnat hyd system makes me grateful I did the last RAF Vampire course, and my QFI tour of the delightfully benign JP 4.
I still find it hard to understand the cause, frequency, of G -loc when guys are wearing G -suits. Never saw it on the JP, no G- suits and max rate turns at sustained 5.5/6 g on some quite old (ish) refresher students.

[TyroPicard]

As I understand it G-LOC occurs due to the rate of rise of G as well as the maximum value, rather than the sustained value.
Greying-out in a JP can be cured by relaxing the G, whereas G-LOC involves a period of unconsciousness and a loss of short-term memory on recovery.

[LOMCEVAK]

There are also phenomena known as P-LOC (partial loss of consciousness) and A-LOC (almost loss of consciousness). These have been well researched and documented by the USAF/USN for many years but have only been introduced into high g training in the UK Military since the Red Arrows accident at Bournemouth. That accident report is worth a read regarding high g related loss of consciousness phenomena, as is the one pertaining to the L-M F-22 accident at Edwards a few years ago.

[highcirrus]

HarryMann

Has G-Loc been discussed ?

I did bring up the possibility in post No 40 and it was picked up by Wingswinger in his post No 51.

I seem to recall (1966) that pulling +7 g max possible rate turns in the Gnat was unsurprisingly easier than pulling +6 g max possible rate turns in the JP due Gnat swept wing aerodynamics, raked (front) seating, g suit and responsive flight controls that lent themselves to the task and thus made sustained high g manoeuvres more comfortable compared with the JP.

Gnat QFIs I flew with would require of me sustained high g turns, which, age 20 and reasonably fit, I was happy to furnish them with but I did notice that after three or so rapid turn reversals of max possible rate (full thrust, quickly to max g [7] on the buffet, max IAS [360 kts, I think], bank angle approx 140 degrees and going down fast) I could still hold a conversation with the instructor but, meanwhile, had quickly and completely blacked out. A recovery was instantly effected by relaxing the g and applying a little aileron to roll some of the bank off - amount guessed at, as I was unable to see until vision returned - when a muffled instruction usually issued from the rear seat to fly S&L or commence a less bracing pastime.

Whilst never getting to a G-Loc situation during these or other medium level exercises (just black-out), I was damned careful never to pull anything like the same g values at low level, when, I figured, a very quick black-out would equally quickly end in disaster.

[BEagle]

Gnat QFIs I flew with would require of me sustained high g turns, which, age 20 and reasonably fit, I was happy to furnish them with but I did notice that after three or so rapid turn reversals of max possible rate (full thrust, quickly to max g [7] on the buffet, max IAS [360 kts, I think], bank angle approx 140 degrees and going down fast) I could still hold a conversation with the instructor but, meanwhile, had quickly and completely blacked out.

After overbanking and entering the spiral descent, I recall that it was "Pull to +5G, squeeze to +6", whilst looking over your shoulder at the number of fingers your QFI was holding up....:hmm:

Those max rate turning sorties were quite physically demanding - but great fun!

At least the Gnat had a proper anti-G system which used bleed air, rather than the bottled air of the Hunter. On some range sorties it was possible to run out of anti-G in the F6A / T7, but IIRC the FGA9 had an extra bottle. Running out of anti-G when you least expected it was very disconcerting! One of our course mates* remarked that he'd completely blacked out when it happened to him in the T7 - something of an unfortunate turn of phrase though, given that he was of Jamaican descent.

*Great chap - went on to higher things on the Jaguar.

[llamaman]

One of our course mates* remarked that he'd completely blacked out when it happened to him in the T7 - something of an unfortunate turn of phrase though, given that he was of Jamaican descent.

I'm not entirely sure that the recounting of a pilot's somewhat disconcerting physiological incident should somehow be linked to the colour of his skin (despite the condescending asterisk link to footnote explaining what a 'great chap' he was).

[highcirrus]

llamaman

I think the technical term for what you've just read is banter.

noun

the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks: there was much good natured banter

verb

exchange remarks in a good humoured teasing way: the men bantered with the waitress

I'm afraid it used to be like that, back in the sixties, before PC and taking grave exception to everything became the norm, so please, cut us some slack, leave us alone and go and get yourself ready for the next Jeremy Corbin rally.

[BEagle]

The reason I wrote that he was a great chap who went on to better things on the Jaguar, was so that ex-Jag Mates would kNOw to whom I was referring.

We were at UAS, RAFC and 4FTS together - those who know him, know his fine sense of humour.

His "I completely blacked out" comment had the crewroom in stitches, including him. "Yeah, since birth, mate", was one reply.

When there are 6 of you still surviving the TWU course and you're all mates, banter flows pretty freely. I hope that's still the case in the anodyne PC world of today....:uhoh:

Anyway, back to the thread - the anti-G system in the Gnat was very reliable and I don't recall anyone having had a failure or an inadvertent turning-trousers disconnect. But if you're braced ready for the system to kick in and for some reason it doesn't, you will be highly likely to black out - but that's not the same as G-loc.

[Wander00]

I recall one disconnection of a G-suit in the Funjet - the late CC was doing aeros somewhere over N Wales when the connection apparently popped out. CC blacked out and came to at a height that made him delighted he had not been aerobatting over Snowdon

[mopardave]

I'm not entirely sure that the recounting of a pilot's somewhat disconcerting physiological incident should somehow be linked to the colour of his skin (despite the condescending asterisk link to footnote explaining what a 'great chap' he was).

Oh god........not here as well. :ugh:

[Stitchbitch]

At the risk of thread creep, who normally looks after the civilian pilots survival equipment in these cases? Is there a CAA rule that it must be maintained regularly or is it a case of taking it into a friendly forces squipper if you happens to be passing a base? As noted earlier in the thread did the ex-Gnat fliers here all wear internal Anti-G trousers?

[Fluffy Bunny]

One would assume that they are maintained and certified by a civil company specialising in Squipping like SES at Tetbury.

[highcirrus]

Stitchbitch

As noted earlier in the thread did the ex-Gnat fliers here all wear internal Anti-G trousers?

Self and colleagues used g-suits (as they seemed to be known then) underneath both standard flying suits and immersion suits. "Internal" use was mandated to minimise snagging inside what is a very snug front cockpit and what I thought was an even snugger rear seat - an impression gained during a couple of formation leads I sat in the back for (instructor in front), to take photos of the formators, of the "look mum, here I am in a Gnat" variety (is that still allowed or does a risk assessment now preclude it?).

[BEagle]

We all had 'internal' turning trousers in my day - I think that they were bespoke to the Gnat as IIRC the hose was on the opposite side to the Hunter's system?

I last flew the Gnat in 1975; in 1982 I had to do some 'clothing card check' prior to being posted and found that the 'system' thought that I still had a Gnat oxygen mask and anti-g suit. Even though the RAF had no Gnats left in service and the kit didn't fit anything else, they wouldn't believe that I'd handed it all in at Valley 7 years earlier.... But a Chf Tech in stores (with whom I worked at the gliding club) came to the rescue - he solemnly wrote out a couple of 'scrap' labels for the mythical kit and it was duly written-off....:ok:

[Stitchbitch]

Fluffy Bunny, one would hope so.

highcirrus and BEagle, thanks, the Gnat cockpit looks very cramped. I last saw some RH tube speed slacks when I was in a dark corner at Boscombe, must have been left overs from VAAc, when I went to test them / get rid of them, the bladder had deteriorated to such an extent that they leaked like a collinder. :oh:

[BEagle]

The Gnat cockpit was compact, it is true. But once you were strapped in with the simple harness with which the Folland seat was fitted, it was fine - everything was within easy reach (apart from the ILS selector box) and for people of normal stature, it was very comfortable.

Whereas although the Hunter 6/9 had a bigger cockpit, some switches were a pig to reach. If you wore a Mk2 bonedome, the starter button could only be reached with the finger tips. The Mk2/3 Martin Baker seats were a bondish-fetishist's wet dream (or so I understand), with individual parachute and seat harnesses into which you had to truss yourself....and the leg-strangler cords were a real pain - whereas the Gnat had permanently fitted leg restraint garters which you just clicked on. Trying to find and reset the inverter CBs required the sort of dexterity (or should that be sinisterity?) exhibited by James Herriot with his arm up inside some unfortunate farmyard creature's nether regions...

[Nige321]

A fund has been set up to help Kevin's wife, daughter and his unborn daughter...

Kevin Whyman Memorial Fund - GoGetFunding | GoGetFunding (http://gogetfunding.com/in-loving-memory-of-kevin-whyman/)



On Saturday 1st August 2015 at precisely 2pm, former RAF pilot, Kevin Whyman, tragically lost his life when his jet plane crashed during a display show at the Carfest charity festival at Oulton Park, Cheshire.

The friends of Kevin and Alexandra Whyman would like to express their gratitude to all the people who have sent messages of support at this most difficult time.

Alexandra is four months pregnant and expecting Kevin’s second daughter which adds to the difficulty of this situation. Kevin was a wonderful and loving father and would have relished being a dad to two girls.

Many people have contacted us and asked about donations. Some wish to donate towards the welfare of Kevin’s daughter which obviously now includes his unborn child as well. In light of this we have opened an account.

Others may wish to donate to a charity that Kevin supported and we have nominated Help For Heroes. Kevin was egalitarian and if there is another charity that you would like to make a donation to in memory of Kevin then that is entirely fitting and appropriate.

All that is left to say is thank you once more for all the messages of support. Each and every one means so much to all the family and friends of our much loved Kevin.

[SilsoeSid]

Tributes to Kevin Whyman | British Rowing (http://www.britishrowing.org/news/2015/august/3/tributes-kevin-whyman)

He had a very successful rowing career, which began at King’s School Chester and led him to cox the junior men’s coxed four at the 1993 World Junior Championships. After which, he went on to cox Cambridge in the 1996 and 1997 Boat Races, winning on both occasions. Donald Legget, the veteran in the Light Blue coaching team, said “Kevin was one of the best Cambridge coxes I ever witnessed and was responsible for two of the greatest wins of the CUBC.”

Harry Brightmore, a former pupil at King’s School, Chester, said, “He was one of the biggest names at King’s, with his name up on the honours board and more recently had a boat named after him. I hoped to be like Kevin Whyman one day, and so when he came to the boathouse I was a bit star-struck. It was a huge shock when I found out.”

Annamarie Phelps, Chairman of British Rowing, said “Our thoughts are with his family and many friends during this difficult time, and he will be sorely missed by the rowing community.”

There will be a full tribute to Kevin Whyman in the September edition of Rowing and Regatta.

RiP :(

NUSlxUsNOdg

[Yellow Son]

BEagle reports "The Gnat cockpit was compact . . for people of normal stature, it was very comfortable". (Sorry, I haven't found the 'auto-quote' button!).

Well, I'd agree 95%, with the awful exception of the immersion suit we wore in 1965. This had separate top and trousers, and was kept watertight by overlapping the rubber waistbands and rolling them together. This produced a fat sausage around the waist which pressed against the ejector seat O2 bottle located (I feel pretty sure) over the right kidney. Misery. Good job we didn't do long sorties . . . Summer came as a great relief.

[Wander00]

Still flying in those awful suits in the Canberra several years later. Then there was the seat pan upgrade trial - and some tw@t put the straps across the "box" so the one that was higher was the side where the sciatic nerve was nearest the surface - consequently you could always tell if someone getting out of the aircraft had been on a "trial" seat - he could barely walk!

[highcirrus]

I'm sure that we are thread-creeping here but didn't that self same suit also incorporate a tube through which the g-suit hose was threaded and then connected to the anti-g system in the cockpit?

I well remember being less than impressed when the bl**dy thing leaked big time during wet dingy drill in Hollyhead Harbour, as I'd apparently failed to secure the thing properly with the tin-opener type key provided for such occasions when no hose was present!

[malabo]

He didn't row he was a cox, not that it makes a rat's difference in the discussion of this accident. I'll be cold enough to suggest that he should have thought about his leisure time choices with respect to the family responsibilities. We all know about demonstration flying risks. At some point you give something up if you want to be assured that you'll be around to support and raise your children.

My view: low ceiling changed the game and he didn't adapt. Rolled inverted for a pull-through, saw Mother Earth with her arms outstretched to greet him, and pulled a high-g snap. Out of control flick into the ground. But let's wait for the AAIB.:(

[jonw66]

Tourist
Quite
Jon

[Smudger]

Why should his post be removed ? He's just giving his opinion .. if you don't like it then tough

[airpolice]

Quite right Smudger,

Freedom of speech and all that.

Malabo has the right to be publicly appear to be a ****.

[Unusual Attitude]

Rolled inverted for a pull-through...

From 200-300ish feet?!?!? Really?!?! :ugh:

[Paracab]

My view: low ceiling changed the game and he didn't adapt. Rolled inverted for a pull-through, saw Mother Earth with her arms outstretched to greet him, and pulled a high-g snap. Out of control flick into the ground.

But let's wait for the AAIB.

I'm quietly confident that I'm not the only one to spy a little flaw in that particular post.

[Courtney Mil]

Although I don't agree with his assessment, I think you may have missed the full implication of what Malabo was suggesting. I think his idea was that the weather had forced them to a low altitude display and he had still tried to complete the pull through that was a part of the full display. Either that or, as UA and Paracab have suggested, Malabo's use of the term "pull through" is utterly stupid.

I shall say only this, the roll past 90 degrees was loaded and did not look to me even slightly like a deliberate, planned manoeuvre that was part of a display.

I cannot credit Malabo with either a sense of dignity nor much understanding of fast jet flying. I have to ask, why the aggressive, insensitive and utterly flawed post as an entry to the thread? I suspect he has withdrawn to jet blast or wherever he usually lurks. No mention of anything flying related in his profile.

[airpolice]

Malabo wrote, and may wish to detract.... He didn't row he was a cox, not that it makes a rat's difference in the discussion of this accident. I'll be cold enough to suggest that he should have thought about his leisure time choices with respect to the family responsibilities. We all know about demonstration flying risks. At some point you give something up if you want to be assured that you'll be around to support and raise your children.

My view: low ceiling changed the game and he didn't adapt. Rolled inverted for a pull-through, saw Mother Earth with her arms outstretched to greet him, and pulled a high-g snap. Out of control flick into the ground. But let's wait for the AAIB.


I wonder what this says about the attitude of some ppruners to military aviators. Given the risks associated with combat, and indeed training, in military aircraft, the chances of surviving to raise children are not exactly a safe bet.

People do it just the same.

Is Malabo really suggesting that those who go to war, or defend our shores, in aircraft don't care about their family? That's how it reads.

Where is Malabo going to draw the line? Should there be something, anything, that I could give up in order to be assured that I will see my kids get older, please tell me what it is.

If I stop flying for recreation.

If I sell the Audi TT Roadster and buy another Volvo.

If I change my diet and take more exercise, Jogging not Tacevals.

If I sell the BMW K1100LT and stop motorcycling entirely.

Will that prevent me from dying of bowel cancer and never knowing what kind of Grandfather I might have been?

I'm not normally given to expressing such venom at arseholes on the internet, but I say this to Malabo, in response to your disgusting smear without foundation on Kevin's choices.....


Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

[jonw66]

Don't credit him by getting wound up he's either a troll or just brain dead.

[Easy Street]

malabo's post might well have been too soon after the event for good taste, and perhaps qualifies as 'trolling' on that account, but I'm going to begin by defending him/her against accusations of being 'brain dead'. I hadn't planned to post my analysis of the video footage, but since I've been moved to write I'll record a +1 for that part of the post (although I think it's more likely that the pilot grossly overbanked while looking into the turn, rather than starting a roll-and-pull through). It looks to me like a straightforward case of the bank angle being corrected without noticing the descent that had been established, followed by a late and excessive pull when the proximity of the ground became apparent.

As to the more controversial part of the post, on the personal attitude to risk, I think the denunciation by airpolice is probably a bit strong. It's all very well to say that we're free to take our own risks, and of course we are. But I think it is wrong to say that another's choices are always above criticism - for example, I think most will have felt profoundly uneasy watching the documentary a few years ago about the French free-climber whose kids never knew whether Daddy would be coming home from his latest adventure. My personal view is that the purpose of the activity matters a lot, and so I reject the notion that malabo's criticism of Mr Whyman's attitude to risk automatically implies criticism of all combat pilots with families. I think there's something about a death in the line of duty (of any sort, military or civilian) that helps families to make sense of their loss.

The 'synchro' slot on the Reds is selected from three full-time individuals who've already been through an exacting selection a year earlier, and who've earned above average assessments when compared to their peers in productive military flying even to get to that selection. So, while not reaching French free climber-levels, I must admit to feeling a degree of unease at the notion that someone could maintain the level of performance to fly a 'synchro'-type display on a part-time basis without a deep reservoir of full-time experience to fall back on, and without the forces of competitive selection to ensure the maintenance of the highest-possible standards. Heck, we've seen the professional formation aerobatic teams get bitten enough times over the years as it is, even with those elements in place. For me, there was enough risk in this situation for it not to count as just another way of passing the time.

Beyond expressing my general unease, I'm not going to follow malabo in offering a specific judgement - for a start, I don't know enough about Mr Whyman's flying ability or Gnat experience. Eventually, enough will be publicly known, and that will be the time for discussion regarding the ability and experience level required to safely conduct fast jet formation aerobatic displays.

[The Old Fat One]

Easy Street,

A good, well-considered and thoughtful post IMHO (disclaimer, not being a pilot, I refer to paragraphs 2, 3 & 4).

Whilst accepting parts of Air Polices post, I too believe it is too extreme. In particular...

I wonder what this says about the attitude of some ppruners to military aviators

The answer to this rhetorical question is: "it says absolutely nothing." Out of respect for the deceased and his family, I won't expand on my reasoning, but it should be pretty obvious.

This accident is bound to raise and maintain an interest amongst aviators, and so it should - it is not that hard to maintain a respectful discussion if people try.

[Unusual Attitude]

I hadn't planned to post my analysis of the video footage, but since I've been moved to write I'll record a +1 for that part of the post (although I think it's more likely that the pilot grossly overbanked while looking into the turn, rather than starting a roll-and-pull through). It looks to me like a straightforward case of the bank angle being corrected without noticing the descent that had been established, followed by a late and excessive pull when the proximity of the ground became apparent.

I very much doubt there is anything straightforward here, as with most aviation accidents its usually a number of contributory factors. Looking at the footage however something else struck me after reading an earlier comment in this thread about an incident in the past of an un-commanded pitch / trim runaway which forced the crew to eject.
I'm not 100% familiar with the segment of the display that was being flown however I have seen footage of a single Gnat running down the display line inverted, I assume as part of the synchro segment.

If this was the manoeuvre being attempted at the start of the longer footage available then its possible the roll to inverted was started, insufficient forward stick was available to keep the nose up and the bank quickly rolled back off to recover. With the pitch up continuing to increase as the trim continues to run to full limit, the g-load and AOA would rapidly increase until the point the aircraft stalls / flicks with no room to recover.

I'm not trying to do the AAIB's job just merely throwing another scenario out there other than simply mishandling at low level, perhaps those with more knowledge of the Gant’s rather complex trim system could discuss?

Regards

UA

[ShotOne]

"Attitude of this forum to military aviators..." Actually it says a great deal particularly the glaring difference between the way civilian and military aviators are spoken about here. I've never once seen the kind of forensic delving into the background and training of any military pilot that has appeared on this thread. That holds true even after accidents in which there was clearly a large slice of blame attributable. How come there's a completely different rule-book in this case?

[dsc810]

Well from what I have read on this thread there seems considerable 'doubt' as to exactly what sort of military flying qualifications the pilot had.
......not helped by the curious evasiveness of the group's website around the subject which I also looked at.
That is why the matter is being raised.

I myself was aware that there were civilian Gnats flying but I had never guessed there was a team flying formation display aerobatics in them which personally I would have thought is the field of full time RAF pilots only.

[ShotOne]

"I would have thought that the field of full time RAF pilots.." If you did think that, dsc it only shows you're out of touch with the present-day display world. At last years Cosford for instance, all the jets aside from a solo Typhoon and the Reds were civilian. Clearly this offends you but that's how it is. And since you make the point, there have, unfortunately, been numerous tragic examples of airshow crashes by full-time military pilots in UK and elsewhere. Some have involved terrible loss of life on the ground. Can you give even one instance where the pilots' background or training has been spotlighted in this way?

[Courtney Mil]

So now that there is no news about the accident, we have another thread about debriefing each other's posts.

And, yes, it is too early to start pontificating about Kev's abilities, quals and life-style choices. And, yes, a little respect and discretion wouldn't go amiss here.

Please.

[The Old Fat One]

I appreciate shotone that you have a bee in your bonnet, but could I point out that you have the wrong end of the stick.

The distinction most are drawing is not between military and civilian pilots; its between full time, do-it-for-a-living pilots and part time pilots who are doing it as a hobby ,or leisure activity, or some other reason. Military and civil does not come into it.

And leading on from that, again most of the posts (if you care to read them) make no comment, disrespectful or otherwise, on the pilots flying abilities whatever the reason he was in the air.

Frankly, you are just making stuff up - and this is way more disrespectful in the long run because it is maintaining a discussion about the pilots abilities, which is a non-existent issue at this moment for most of us at this time.

[orca]

Thought long and hard about not posting.

This poor chap was reported, post tragedy, as being 'RAF trained' in press coverage fed (as I understand it) by input from his team. The implication being that being 'RAF trained' would add to his or the team's credentials, possibly by way of demonstrating in the immediate aftermath of an incredibly emotive event that the accident pilot and team were a professional set up.

It is easy to draw the conclusion here that the team, or the press, were making the point that he had received training, provided by a recogniseable and well thought of organisation. He could therefore, if you followed this train of thought, be assumed to be a better pilot than he would have been in the parallel universe where he wasn't 'RAF trained'.

I have an hour or two in fast jets. I only mention it because in that hour or two I've seen the complete spectrum of behaviour and ability from people of all aviating walks of life. Military, civil, incompetent, dangerous, fabulous, utmost professionalism, the lot.

Military training is simply one of a variety of means of providing training. It doesn't absolutely guarantee competence or professionalism - for those who've had a taster, or those that have done it for a lifetime. The point is simple; there are other ways of entering or continuing aviation that would be considered 'comparable means of compliance'.

Whether you consider this chap to have been RAF trained, or an RAF pilot, or why you think it was mentioned by team or press, or the manner in which it was reported is probably irrelevant.

As for those who feel their time is well spent speculating upon the cause, and factors contributing towards, the tragedy - your call entirely, as is paying an iota of attention for the rest of us.

[Easy Street]

ShotOne,

You come across as very defensive and I don't think there's any need. If threads here rarely question the training and experience of military pilots, I suspect it's because most posters have a pretty good idea of the training and experience of a military pilot. Conversely most of us have no idea of how you take a PPL-holding civilian and train him/her to fly a fast jet. For instance, would there have been access to a simulator of any description for emergency training? How many hours per annum would have been flown? Is selection for a pilot's seat competitive against a number of other candidates, and if so who does the judging? In most cases we know the answers to questions like those in respect of military flying without needing to ask them. An exception I can think of was the Glen Kinglas F3 accident, where there was quite a discussion over the (junior) pilot's experience of low flying.

[throwaway]

I've been following this discussion with interest. I was at Carfest and saw this terrible crash. I've seen a couple of pictures taken just before the crash and I was wondering if they show a problem which may have had a bearing on the incident. These images have both been sent to the AAIB before anyone asks. I didn't take them.

I have no flying experience and am as far from being en expert as it's possible to get.

So, to my layman's eye, it looks like there may be something wrong with the ailerons. In these images, the left one looks to be "up" much more than the right is "down" (if it's even down at all, I can't tell). Maybe this is normal, I really don't know.

All I see is that there is clear air visible between the inboard end of the left aileron and the rest of the wing, but none between the right and its wing. I don't really know what to infer from that though.

Can anyone with more experience of these things cast any light on this? Am I seeing something wrong with the plane or am I just wrong in my understanding?

My attempt at an edit showing the wings

http://i.imgur.com/Gj66p7h.jpg

The full size images are here

First Image - http://i.imgur.com/1ocdOaH.jpg

Second Image - http://i.imgur.com/Cf1VFWy.jpg

[charliegolf]

Throwaway, I am with you in knowing absolutely nowt about jets n stuff, but I am aware that lots of aircraft have ailerons which do not operate symmetrically. Are they referred to as 'differential'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron#Differential_ailerons

Zoomies will be along to put us straight from a position of knowledge soon!

CG

[Lima Juliet]

^^^^ + 1 As Charlie Golf says

Maybe wouldn't look unusual. Don't know the Gnat that well, so it might be unusual as well. Each of the 4 fast jet types I've flown have different ways of inducing roll - one didn't even have ailerons!

LJ :ok:

PS. Even a humble Cessna has differential ailerons with 20degs up and 15degs down in full roll control.

[ORAC]

Of interest, but probably not relevant. Fatal crash in the USA in 2013. (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=157853)

[BEagle]

throwaway, those images seem quite normal if the Gnat was being flown with 1 notch of flap (which made it nicer to fly at medium speeds due to increased pitch stability from the inboard shift of the centre of pressure).

That well-known shot of Ray Hanna's low-level beat up also shows the Gnat being flown with a notch of flap extended.

[throwaway]

BEagle, thanks for the explanation. Now you mention the flaps I can see that makes sense. The left aileron is lined up with the flap making it appear as though it's not moved, but it's just at the same deflection.

[Lima Juliet]

The RH picture does look like there is a small amount of flap set. Or is it just me?

LJ

[Krystal n chips]

From an engineering perspective, I don't recall differential aileron on the Gnat. I could be wrong of course and stand corrected if this was the case.

I do recall changing innumerable aileron hydro-boosters however, which were prone to leakage, and likewise the Hobson Units which were a nightmare to set up once the rear fuselage had been connected up again.

I also recall the very complex "monkey puzzle " pulley box system located behind in the rear seat which gave problems for a while, but which were subsequently modified.

NON of the above should in anyway be construed as speculation however, just some clarification as to the flying control systems.

[FascinatedBystander]

Shoreham air crash: Previous UK aerial display accidents - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34032142) contains a video of the Gnat at Carfest - it contains two 10 sec segments - the first may be helpful.

[treadigraph]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5714f1f040f0b60385000072/Folland_Gnat_T_Mk_1_G-TIMM_05-16.pdf

[dsc810]

Well Well...
Pilot had an average of just 12 hours flying per year for the last 5 years.
The medical history is also ummm interesting.

[Flap62]

An average of 12 hours per year over the last five years? And he thought it sensible to display a high performance jet at low level? Whilst it is undoubtably tragic that he lost his life it is all to easy to dance round the obvious. It Is a huge failing of supervision that this was ever allowed to happen but it ultimately rests on the individual. Just how many of these "professional" pilots are trying their luck every week? It is simply not acceptable to say that it was a fault of the system. This pilot should have stopped himself from ever getting airborne never mind relying on the "system" to protect them.

[andrewn]

An average of 12 hours per year over the last five years? And he thought it sensible to display a high performance jet at low level? Whilst it is undoubtably tragic that he lost his life it is all to easy to dance round the obvious. It Is a huge failing of supervision that this was ever allowed to happen but it ultimately rests on the individual. Just how many of these "professional" pilots are trying their luck every week? It is simply not acceptable to say that it was a fault of the system. This pilot should have stopped himself from ever getting airborne never mind relying on the "system" to protect them.

Not sure I agree with you here f62. How many of us, everyday in our cars, knowingly take risks safe in the knowledge we are on the right side of the law (but conscious that what we are doing is wrong or beyond our capabilities)? The issue here most definitely IS "the system" which allowed those circumstances to occur, in my opinion.

[Flap62]

You are of course entirely entitled to hold that opinion.

Much has been made of his RAF "training". All I was trying to say was that i cannot see how anyone having had any sort of formal military training could get into that sort of position. I would consider myself very fortunate to have flown nearly 2000 hours in single seat fast jets. If you asked me to display a jet when i had averaged 12 hours per year over the last 5 years then i would tell you where to go. I honestly cannot understand the mindset of someone who felt capable of "leading" a pair of jets when they are so obviously not capable of the task.

[Lonewolf_50]

Is the important metric "hours" or "sorties" flown? It appears that all of them were either a display or a practice in that aircraft.
Sorties / hours /displays or practices.

11/6/ 5
15/11/11
18/13/13
26/19/18/
9/10/7
Won't comment further but sometimes hours (for short flights) might not be as significant as number of sorties flown.

[salad-dodger]

I was at that CarFest with my family. I had no idea that a pilot with so little experience and recency on the aircraft would be allowed to fly a display such as that at an event with thousands of people attending. That there is a system that allowed that to happen beggars belief.

Comparisons with everyday driving activities are ludicrous by the way.

S-D

[The Old Fat One]

That there is a system that allowed that to happen beggars belief.

Pretty much everything about this accident beggars belief.

[Evalu8ter]

Flap62,
I'm inclined to agree with you. However, in this case he wasn't 'taskd by the Boss' to display - he was a volunteer who'd stumped up (I guess) a considerable amount of money over the past 5 years to get in that cockpit. It makes my eyes water to think of a 700 hr PPL displaying as part of a pair of FJs - let alone with, by military stds, pretty poor currency.

Maybe the CAA need to have a long hard look at their DA rules. The 200hr limit was, probably, there to enable the likes of Tiger Club members to display a Stampe. Perhaps now there will be a much stricter requirement laid down on experience & currency. It would be easy to say 'only ex mil FJ guys can display jets'; I guess if it wasn't for Shoreham it would be a cacophony - but that accident also raises the issue of currency not just background. There is already a massive change occuring in the ex-mil jet world, and, IMHO, rightly so. unfortunately it will mean the loss from these shores, or the sky, of some distinctive and worthy aircraft. But. Airshows need to be demonstrably safe and if that means fewer,better experienced, pilots flying more ISPs/displays to be more current then so be it.

[Just This Once...]

If a person with a basic PPL with low hours and poor currency can gain authority to fly a high performance swept-wing fast jet, in a demanding flight regime at a public event, one has to ask just what the CAA believes is 'not good enough'. If this unfortunate soul didn't stand-out to them as a massive concern then we don't really have a regulator worthy of the role.

[Wander00]

Brings back memories of the day I was a low hours Gnat pilot, going round the final turn and going down like a lift an fresh out of ideas - until Vic W in the back said "I have control" and unloaded, got us to s&l, and a quiet Rhodesian voice from the back said "If you'd been on your own you would have been adjectival dead." Thanks Vic. But sadly it highlights what seems to have happened here. Low hours, short on experience and out of ideas. Very sad. RIP

[Courtney Mil]

Now that the report is published, I'll offer my thoughts.

The report certainly raises some interesting points. To my mind, it also appears not to address a couple of important points. I should declare, at this point, that I have never flown the Gnat, but I do have some 5000 hours of fast jet flying. I have never done, nor ever had the desire to do low level aeros although I have been involved in flight and display supervision.

His experience and currency is obviously the main issue that stands out in this case, followed closely by his undeclared medical condition, which may be irrelevant, but surely deserves consideration, given that he may have had symptoms - occurrences of symptoms of the condition only disappear over time in 25% of cases (Mayo Clinic website).

It appears, from the report that the relevant sequence of events was two rapid aileron rolls, nose drop at low altitude and application of an incorrect recovery technique - for whatever reason.

The two rolls were separated by a short pause, so it seems unlikely that inertia coupling was an issue provided there was no longitudinal stick input. Although, the shorter the pause, the greater the likelihood of residual yaw/pitch from the first roll. Alternatively, it is possible that the pilot has applied back stick to correct any nose drop from the first roll and had not fully removed that input during the entry to the second roll. Any residual rearward stick input would induce a pitch down after the first quarter of the roll - as could air disturbance (jet wash, etc). The situation may have been recoverable at that point.

What follows is based on the report's ascertain that technical faults were not determined, although that does not necessarily mean there weren't any.

Commanding right roll was appropriate as would rearward stick movement once the wings were level or close to it. (unload, roll wings level, pull to the buffet). A hard pull when overbanked was not. Also the degree of aft input looks like it was large enough to stall one or both wings. So the question is why pull at that stage and why so hard? Some possibilities:

Lack of experience in Gnat handling.
Lack of training in the correct recovery technique.
Momentary desperation.

Or, not really addressed in the report, disorientation. Causes? Rapid head movement for some reason during the roll or between the rolls (looking for his number two?), increased susceptibility on the day due to physiological factors or dizziness brought on by his medical condition - is a listed symptom. I doubt that gloc was an issue at that point.

I look forward to comments from the TP, Gnat pilot and QFI fraternity. I'm just a QWI.

I do have to say, it's a good report, but it does leave some gaps in the findings. I also wonder how well a PPL pilot understands the intricacies of swept wing aerodynamics, inertia couple ing and the bit with K, Q, cam and gear in it?

[tarantonight]

An average of 12 hours per year over the last five years? And he thought it sensible to display a high performance jet at low level? Whilst it is undoubtably tragic that he lost his life it is all to easy to dance round the obvious. It Is a huge failing of supervision that this was ever allowed to happen but it ultimately rests on the individual. Just how many of these "professional" pilots are trying their luck every week? It is simply not acceptable to say that it was a fault of the system. This pilot should have stopped himself from ever getting airborne never mind relying on the "system" to protect them.

Agree with this totally. Driving comparison!!!!.

[Genghis the Engineer]

For the record, for a UK / EASA PPL, the absolute minimum to maintain the licence is 12 hours in the second half of each 2 year cycle. That 12 hours must include at-least 1 hour with an instructor, and at-least 6 hours PiC.

So, it would appear likely that this chap was just meeting the minimum recency requirements that the CAA would consider appropriate to - say - fly a Cessna 150.

Military minima are, of-course, somewhat higher!

G

[Wageslave]

I thought aerobatics by "vintage jets" was banned?

[Courtney Mil]

It is suspended, but it wasn't then.

[tmmorris]

I guess the problem is that the Venn diagram of 'people who have the experience and currency to display vintage Jets' and 'people who can afford to fly vintage jets' doesn't have much in the overlap. This chap appears to have been in the latter category but not the former. I only fly spamcans and I wouldn't be happy with that level of currency in a PA28.

Also I note the falling off in his annual hours recently - I wonder if family considerations meant he couldn't find time or money as easily? Pure speculation but a common problem with private flying.

[jim's brother]

In post 209, Courtney Mil has offered a clear analysis of the possible reasons for this sad accident.

There is a 14-year-old thread here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/72761-gnat-roll-rate-fuse.html) which addresses the roll rate of the Gnat and the potential for inertial coupling, fin stress and disorientation. The maximum roll rate of the Gnat could easily be increased by the removal of Fuse 13. It would be useful if the moderators could bring this thread to the front of the forum, as it is locked and therefore I cannot.

We shall probably never know why the aircraft had a positive pitch input during the latter stages of the second roll. However, I had the great pleasure of flying the Gnat during my RAF training, and confirm that the roll-rate during a "twinkle" roll is very high, even with Fuse 13 in-situ. From memory - and I am sure I will be corrected if my 40-year memory fails me - the procedure was to raise the nose slightly above the horizon, quickly apply full aileron, then almost immediately cease rolling. It was so fast - and so easy! - that there was little potential for excessive nose-drop. However, there was great potential for disorientation to occur, and that potential would increase dramatically (a) when carrying out two consecutive rolls; (b) at low level; (c) with the added psychological stresses of leading a formation and flying at a public display; and (d) if one were not fully experienced and current on the aircraft.

There is a high probability that (d) - experience and currency - is the overriding factor in this case. The AAIB report sets out this pilot's comparatively shallow experience of (a) flying in general; (b) flying fast jets; (c) flying the Gnat; and (d) his poor currency. With this in mind, others have suggested that this pilot should not have allowed himself to carry out this display flight. However, his flying experience appears to have met all the rules and, I am sure that the pilot was absolutely certain that he was up to the job. After all, he had had the benefit of excellent RAF training prior to his medical retirement, and I would imagine that flying the Gnat was his way of replacing his dashed ambitions within the RAF, and good on him for that. But - we pilots sometimes believe that we are more competent than we really are, and it often takes someone else to tell us the truth. I've been there.

What was lacking here was (a) a proper chain of supervison; and (b) a system of rules for experience and currency that took into account (i) the skills required to fly a fast jet competently; (ii) the experience required to carry out aerobatics safely in a fast jet at low level; and (iii) the currency required to ensure that a pilot is both competent and safe on any particular day.

I quote Salad-Dodger above "I was at that CarFest with my family. I had no idea that a pilot with so little experience and recency on the aircraft would be allowed to fly a display such as that at an event with thousands of people attending. That there is a system that allowed that to happen beggars belief."

Yes, Salad-Dodger, you are right. When I organised RAF air shows back in the '80s, safety of the public was my major concern. I was happy to accept that the pilots flying at my displays were well-supervised and well-authorised for the event by either the RAF or the CAA. I knew that the RAF's supervision was to a very high standard, and the CAA's was entirely satisfactory for the Pitts Specials and similar civilian aircraft. However, with the advent of ex-military fast jets to the civilian flying display circuit, I would not wish to be a Display Director now - because, based purely on the current CAA rules for of supervision and authorisation, I would be unable to trust any civilian fast-jet to produce a display which would meet my standards for safety.

I would strongly suggest that the CAA should produce a brand new set of rules for the flying of ex-military fast jets by civilians at air displays. I am not suggesting a massaging of the old rules - what is required is for the CAA to go back to square one and produce a proper set of rules fit for purpose. If this results in a reduction in the number of vintage fast jets available for display, that's life.

[Valiantone]

All Civilian Hunters are still grounded.

The one recent exception was the ex MidAir Squadron airframe at Kemble which was sold. It did a test flight last month and then went on its ferry flight out to Jordan to join the ex Classic AF (ex Swiss) Vampire for the RJAF Historic Flight

The military operated ones are still flyable to my knowledge. Post Shoreham or at least for the last part of the 2015 display season historic fast jets were allowed flypasts only.

V1

[Checks Complete]

Having worked at DASC (formally IFS) I concur with Courtney Mil. When many of of these 'vintage jets' were in RAF squadron service display flying was carried out by pilots who were experienced operators on type and had extra hours to practise their display. If I remember correctly any display flying had to be approved by a VSO normally the AOC at the beginning of the season. Most of these aircraft have some nasty little foibles which which could catch out experienced combat ready pilots when exploring the flight envelope. Even the humble Chipmunk had to be treated with respect. We all really enjoy watching these vintage jets flying but they were designed in the 40's, 50's and 60's when swept wing aircraft were very much cutting edge.

[Wageslave]

Oops! Didn't spot the date of occurrence.

[Treble one]

I think the issue of pilot currency for non military displays is undoubtedly the one factor the CAA need to address most urgently.

It was a factor in the Gnat incident and will almost certainly be a factor in the Shoreham one.

There is a massive difference in standards between military and civilian display pilots in both currency requirements and experience on type needed to have DA/PDA. It would be no surprise if the currency standards for civilian pilots moves further towards that required for military pilots (in both terms of hours on type and ISP requirements).

Of course, that may kill civilian display flying, or kill the airshow scene (we will end up with Cosford/Farnborough and RIAT and sod all else due to increased costs)

BBC

[airpolice]

Courtney, why have you never flown the Gnat, were you too tall and therefore on Hunters at Valley?

[falcon900]

As has already been said, it is strange that the medical condition point is not further developed in the report. Whether it did or did not contribute to the accident we will never know, but we do know that the Pilots RAF career was brought to a halt by it, we do know that he did not have the recommended medical intervention to address the condition, and we do know that he didnt declare it subsequently.
It simply beggars belief that at no point in the various applications and medicals which he would have undertaken in the intervening period was he ever asked to declare whether there was any other relevant factor or pre existing condition. You cant even hire a car at the airport without confirming that you have no medical condition which might affect your ability to drive! Were the processes so deficient that he was never asked, or is there a parallel with the Glasgow bin lorry to be drawn.....

[Fareastdriver]

You would have thought that before they let him strap a Gnat on they would have asked why he had stopped flying training in the RAF.

[BEagle]

airpolice wrote: Courtney, why have you never flown the Gnat, were you too tall..?

Mrs Courtney's little lad too tall?? ROTFLMAO, as they say!

The reason was that both the Gnat and Hunter had been phased out by the time CM reached Valley, so he did his advanced flying training on the JP6, otherwise known as the Hawk T1. Not for him the mysteries of STUPRECCC and CUBSTUNT, the Hobson motor, cam K and datum shift.....

Regarding the AAIB report, its forensic investigation is very thorough and an excellent piece of work. Whether the pilot was incapacitated, disorientated, or simply out of his depth will never be known.

[Fortissimo]

Quote from the EASA Mental Health TF report:

“The majority of medical conditions present in between medical examinations are not detected … unless reported by the pilot.”

And that was written about ATPL holders, this man was operating on a PPL.

[wiggy]

You would have thought that before they let him strap a Gnat on they would have asked why he had stopped flying training in the RAF.

Well he / she may simply answer that they didn't fancy the forces and/or military flying life style ( and whilst that might sound like BS it happened to one course mate of mine and also to one of my more able basic jet students a few years later...) so the fact someone stopped training leaves you none the wiser about whether they've got the "right stuff" or not.

However there's still the issue of exposure. Unless an individual is going to go off and buy lots (i.e. hundreds of hours) of swept wing fast jet time I really don't think it's reasonable or sensible for them to go off and perform fast jet aerobatic display flying in front of the paying public. Just for background I've much the same early career path as CM and Beags, and very very much agree with CM's analysis.

As for the lack of medical disclosure - we've been around the houses a few times about this on the German Wings thread and I don't have an answer.

[Wander00]

Jim's sibling - the there were those who had, or had been "twinkled" low level at the Llyn Ogwen bend on the A5 pass. Did the Reds of the day not have Fuse 13 removed

[jim's brother]

Wander00,

The twinkle roll, fuse 13, and the Arrows are all covered in the post here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/72761-gnat-roll-rate-fuse.html), to which I referred.

In that thread, northwing says:
Everyone was happy, not to mention legal, till an ex Red Arrow who had returned to instructional duties flying a Gnat with Fuse 13 in place developed an unusual demonstration for his students. He decided to show them how fast a Gnat could roll by applying full (12deg, fuse in) lateral stick and helping the aircraft round with rudder. He thought this was OK because he did it within the restricted Red Arrows rolling limits. The fin, however, had other views about full rudder at 350 knots and broke in protest. The RAF system then missed the point, over-reacted and insisted that everybody fly with Fuse 13 in place. End of super formation twinkle rolls.I remember once being told by my Gnat QFI that my flying wasn't "punchy" enough. In response, on the next trip, I punchily "twinkle" rolled as we climbed out of the A5 pass, which resulted in a pretty one-sided debrief about carrying out aerobatics at low level - especially when that results in one's QFI's head banging rapidly on both sides of the canopy. He was quite right, though - I simply didn't have the experience to do that sort of thing - which pretty well illustrates my point about the importance of close supervision of the young pilot who thinks he is just fantastic.

[Wwyvern]

Wolf Parkinson White Syndrome

Interesting Report. I had WPWS and displayed not-so-fast jets.
I left the RAF in 1975 because it had been discovered that I had WPWS. This caused my aircrew category to be downgraded to “As or with a Co-pilot”. CME did not offer surgery to repair the condition and the Air Sec told me that I had no chance of becoming CAS without a clean aircrew category. Well, that settled it for me, and as I had been formalising my ATPL and discussed the civil medical condition with a local AME (Army doc as it happened), CAA gave me a Class 1 medical certificate, limited to “As or with a Co-pilot”. This limitation was no hindrance to the civvie world, and that is what I entered. CAA had me visit CME(?) whenever the medical was renewed to see that the condition had not deteriorated. I was looked after by an RAF senior doctor.
When I finished paid civvie flying, I approached the CAA to have the “As or with” restriction lifted so that I could get some PPL flying. This was accomplished after a 24 hour heart monitor test, and I was back to flying single pilot, with a Class 2 medical. Being over 50, ECGs were required annually. I began flying vintage aeroplanes (Piston Provost, SAAB 91 and Chipmunk), obtained a Display Authorisation and extended it to Jet Provosts (Mks 1, 3 and 5a). I stopped displaying these types in 1998 and acquired a DA for Microlight aircraft. It amused me that I was restricted to aerobatics in microlights down to 400ft agl. At that time microlights were absolutely non-aerobatic.
In 2003 I had an operation (ablation) to clear the WPWS which was successful. ECGs were back to normal. I finished flying in 2008 as a microlight pilot.

[Courtney Mil]

Courtney, why have you never flown the Gnat, were you too tall and therefore on Hunters at Valley?

As BEags has already pointed out, at 5"8' I'm only too tall to be a jokey or to rent myself out for dwarf tossing. I was one of the early courses through the Hawk at Valley and Brawdy, but was lucky enough to fly the Hunter during holding before the F4.

[Mike51]

I'm surprised that the AAIB report made no reference to this incident at Abingdon, not long before the Oulton Park accident. I understand that there was another incident at Culdrose not long afterwards too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mt7i9zCs-c

[Flying_Anorak]

I thought that too Mike as it was heart stopping at Abingdon when I saw it, but on reflection he wasn't rolling at the time and it was hissing down. I assumed he just lost visual references briefly.

FA

[Mach the Knife]

As BEags has already pointed out, at 5"8' I'm only too tall to be a jokey or to rent myself out for dwarf tossing. I was one of the early courses through the Hawk at Valley and Brawdy, but was lucky enough to fly the Hunter during holding before the F4.

5'8"? On which planet?

[treadigraph]

'm surprised that the AAIB report made no reference to this incident at Abingdon

Me too. Been waiting to see who'd raise it. Alarm bells surely should have rung?

[rolling20]

Having read the AAIB report and the comments on here it is odd no one has mentioned his day job and that it may be a factor in this incident. If it has been mentioned on here my apologies. Kevin was obviously a very talented individual being Credit Suisse Group AG’s Head of European asset-backed securities sales and I am presuming an MD. I didn't know Kevin, but I have been in Investment Banking for longer than he was, though in a different area. Pressure in this business comes in all shapes and forms, whether through hitting multi hundred million dollar targets, clients making ever increasing demands, superiors piling on pressure from above and managing teams of people, whom you need to achieve their own goals.The pressure hence is wide and varied. Couple that with long hours, this is no 9-5 job. For many years I used to rise at 4.30am for a 6am start. Lunch hours don't exist and leaving the office at 9pm wasn't uncommon. Seeing clients after work would often see you getting to bed at 1 or 2am, sometimes you would go straight to the office hungover and exhausted. Taking a day off in those circumstances was not acceptable. Now we all did it for the renumeration, which was very rewarding. However the effects on your body through disrupted sleep and the strain of the job never left you. I myself was on call every weekend and often talk calls overnight from the States, further disrupting sleep.I only ever started to relax around 8pm on a Sunday night which was about the time I went to bed. I am not suggesting Kevin suffered from these problems, as we all takes pressure in different ways. However my and my colleagues experience is that the pressure is constant and theres no let up,it never leaves you. I wonder what his general sleep pattern was like? He was a very intelligent individual, who occupied a very senior position in the Investment Banking world, but perhaps that day his mind was also elsewhere. RIP.

[HeartyMeatballs]

Rolling20. Interesting points, however each pilot must ensure he is fit, able and capable of carrying out the task in hand. If you're not fit, licensed and properly current (and I don't mean bare minimums just to get 'legal') then taking to the skies is a huge error of judgement and negligent. I wonder if those spectators would have been happy to be at that event knowing that close by a tricky aircraft was being flown by someone who had barely flown for 5 years?

Between this and shorham I'm glad the CAA have taken their stance. Aged, complex aircraft performing high performance maneuvers, coupled with a dose of the 'wrong stuff' and it's a recipe for disaster.

[rolling20]

Hearty, couldn't agree more. The problem is though is the pilot recognising it when his full time job is elsewhere.

[MSOCS]

Rolling, thanks for some excellent points there.

I knew Kev way back but didn't know where he'd gone after the RAF. From your last point I guess my only reply would be that the RAF (and other, larger flying organisations) layer their supervision and orders to help manage the individual and help the individual manage him or herself under such pressures. The workloads you describe, though not considered the norm or wise when combined with day-to-day military aviation, are getting increasingly more prevalent in the current and predicted climate. Manpower shortages without a reduction in the 'ask' require sensibility and careful leadership. Operations have often brought such workloads you describe about the IB sector and I speak from experience. In those conditions we always helped each other out and spoke out, regardless of rank. Many times have I said, or heard said, "Boss, you need to get some sleep, I've got this!", followed by an understanding nod.

My view on this is that the organisation Kev was part of wasn't deep enough to provide that mutual 6th sense when things were diverging from the safe operating region. Kev was also undoubtedly very happy flying and in those circumstances it almost assuredly takes someone else to say stop. One word sums it up for me neatly: supervision.

[Cows getting bigger]

"Supervision" :D:D:D:D

[Alber Ratman]

AAIB have already mentioned that the operators safety management system was..

[Cows getting bigger]

The operator of G-TIMM did not have an SMS as part of its OCM although it stated that it used a risk-based approach when formulating provisions within the OCM. The operator had not identified any elevated risk arising from the experience, training or currency of the pilot of G-TIMM.

and from one of the Shoreham Hunter bulletins:

In 2014 the pilot of G-BXFI was evaluated in relation to his Display Authorisation (DA) by a member of the same display team. This was also the case for the pilot involved in the 2015 fatal accident to Folland Gnat T.Mk1 G-TIMM26 at a flying display at Oulton Park, Cheshire.

Throwing a pebble into the pond and bearing mind both aircraft were based at the same airfield, is the AAIB hinting at a specific organisational issue that may come to light? The display community is relatively small, especially the jet side of the house.

[Two's in]

A stark example of the difference between currency and competency.

[cessnapete]

I find it odd that after the Gnat accident there was no outcry form the CAA or the Press. No great imposition of display restrictions, or massive increase in CAA fees. Presumably because only the pilot was killed, no civilians involved.
It seems both accidents may have had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry. Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
The hugely popular Jersey Air Show apparently in the balance this year. The organisers being told that although the displays take place over the sea, that they must ensure no vessels of any sort must be moored in St Aubins bay. Any incursion of this rule means immediate cessation of flying. No spectators to be allowed at all on the whole of the bay beach, with severe vehicle restrictions in the vicinity, Elizabeth Castle must be clear of all persons. All these positions normally places of observation for this great show.
And of course the massive increase in fees
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
Presumably. with this criteria, if the Farnborough Air Show is to go ahead the whole urban area under the flight path of any display item must be clear of potential spectators or persons.
Health and safety gone mad!!

[salad-dodger]

I find it odd that after the Gnat accident there was no outcry form the CAA or the Press. No great imposition of display restrictions, or massive increase in CAA fees. Presumably because only the pilot was killed, no civilians involved.
It seems both accidents had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry. Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
The hugely popular Jersey Air Show apparently in the balance this year. The organisers being told that although the displays take place over the sea, that they must ensure no boats of any sort must be moored in St Aubins bay. Any incursion of this rule means immediate cessation of flying. No persons to be allowed at all on the whole of the bay beach, with severe vehicle restrictions in the vicinity, and of course the massive increase in fees.

This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
Health and safety gone mad!!

Cessnapete, if you haven't managed to work out why Shoreham has drawn so much more attention then there isn't much more to be said. The CarFest crash went by fairly quietly, but is likely to come down to all the same major issues as Shoreham. We just can't really discuss them on here openly because the ex RAF fast jet pilot mafia shout any discussion down.

All of that said though, your post suggests that at some point in your life you must have been declared clinically stupid.

S-D

[treadigraph]

the ex RAF fast jet pilot mafia shout any discussion down

No they don't, I suggest that they would rather wait for the full facts before passing judgement - quite right too.

All of that said though, your post suggests that at some point in your life you must have been declared clinically stupid.

Oh dear...

I too am appalled that Shoreham happened the way it did but I would prefer to understand from the experts why it went wrong, rather than some form of digital kangaroo court by the inexpert and uninformed - which would include me.

[Courtney Mil]

We just can't really discuss them on here openly because the ex RAF fast jet pilot mafia shout any discussion down.

Not true. The only criticism here has been about anyone drawing their own conclusions that it was clearly the pilot that screwed up and therefore it was all his fault based on a few invalidated pictures, videos and Daily Mail reports. The AAIB report is now released and there is no reason whatsoever that their findings should not be discussed.

As one of the main opponents to unfounded speculation in that area, I have offered my opinion here on the facts in the report now that it is available. All any of us were ever asking for was don't attribute blame without knowing the facts and be a little sensitive about the conclusions you draw.

[H Peacock]

SD. Were you having a bad day when you posted your midnight blah, or just upset we didn't win Eurovision?

I think you need to re-read cessnapete's post. It makes perfect sense to me, or am I missing something?

[Wetstart Dryrun]

ex RAF fast-jet pilots mafia don't like anybody, especially muggles....


...capisco?

[MPN11]

Jersey Display, 1970.

One could have said, even back then, "Is this wise?"

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/08/25/how-safe-are-air-shows/

Photo credited to Jersey Evening Post

[salad-dodger]

Not my words Airpolice

[salad-dodger]

It seems both accidents had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry.
And if the same issues come out of Shoreham, as have been exposed by the CarFest crash, rightly so.

Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
Purely through chance, really?

The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
It's an opinion. Not one I would call knee jerk having just read the Car Fest accident report.

Health and safety gone mad!!
And there we have it in one - the reason for my incredulity with this post.

S-D