Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

[EGNH Flyer]

BADA Information Note in response to the Shoreham Airshow Accident (http://www.bada-uk.com/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=17&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=23)

From the BADA website:

• It is certainly not a time for un-informed or miss-informed rule making, especially when the existing rules have worked so well for so long.

[malabo]

Every airshow accident has a negative impact on aviation that far outweighs a thousand successful demonstrations. If there is a fatality to the pilot then even more so, and if to the public then you can expect the hammers of hell to come down. Flying it to the wire will eventually bite you, but how much margin should you leave? Whatever you thought before has proven to be not enough and I guess it will now be decided for you by the CAA.

I'll judge that from the frequency of airshow accidents in the UK this year, that whatever airshow guidelines are published do not have an adequate safety management system to match the expectations of our absolute safety culture. ACAS on this side of the Atlantic has struggled with similar demons. I could add specifically that there are issues with low level jet work, but there was also the David Jenkins crash earlier. Expect the CAA to come down hard, and rightfully so - they are culpable for not acting sooner and instead now having to explain how their regulations resulted in public fatalities.

[downsizer]

That video from the A27 filmed immediately after.... Why the **** are people filming and not trying to help/first aid any casualties. The last thing I'd think to do would be to whip my phone out and film.

[rolling20]

As I mentioned yesterday, keep them flying, but not to their former military abilities. Seems the CAA now agree.

[TaranisAttack]

@downsizer (http://www.pprune.org/members/141490-downsizer)
Well it certainly helps the crash investigators as it gives them a better picture of the scene as it happened. None of the pictures seem to show anyone that can be helped, less still by untrained unequipped bystander.

@rolling20 (http://www.pprune.org/members/22981-rolling20)
Aerobatics are likely to resume once the storm has died down. It's a temporary measure only.

[clareprop]

Above the Clouds -

You're obviously someone who is prepared to go to great lengths to try and prove your point. Those excerpts (from I guess about 5 years ago) were describing military helicopters flying across open fields in the middle of the countryside. How you can possibly suggest that is the same as this tragic accident is beyond me - and please don't take that as a request to tell me, even though you seem to like to have the last word.

[Finningley Boy]

Given that air displays at airfields are usually based on the main runway (easier to adjust your sequence and for a fast reference), I suggest that it is largely out the pilot's control where the aircraft ends up following a failure (technical or manoeuvre). It is the Display Authority who should decide the direction, safety areas or even if the venue is suitable at all. For example, I was involved in the BOI into the Mig29 midair at Fairford a few years ago. As an academic exercise, I overlaid the crash positions on an airfield map of Farnborough, using the runway as a common reference. The casualty result would have been entirely different.

Again, as I said earlier, take the overlay from the Fairford Mig 29 crash and place it centred over Shoreham's runway? See where it would place the A27 in comparison.

FB

[The Old Fat One]

isn't it somewhat unusual - following an accident - that the CAA takes actions that are not based on AAIB recommendations?

Not in the slightest is it unusual. It is absolutely normal for operating authorities to take whatever immediate action they need to eliminate or manage newly exposed risk.

If you want a high profile example, the Concorde fleet was grounded immediately after the Paris crash, and the accident board did not report for another 18 months. More recently think helicopters in the oil and gas sector.

There will be literally thousands of examples if you care to look.

[strake]

Seems like the CAA have put BADA in their place. The statement they made yesterday quoting that it was 'x years since there has been a spectator fatality at an airshow' and 'let us wait until the AAIB report' was, I suggest, fatuous. The issue here is that the fatalities weren't at the airshow. They were visited upon the victims as a result of other peoples entertainment going terribly wrong.

[Pontius Navigator]

Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.

How does this fit the Vulcan display?

[KenV]

Above the Clouds - So what?

This is a public forum for discussion not some sort of hallowed hall where contributors have to comment in whispers. There are people, very angry people out there today who have lost relatives.....
Fascinating.

Because this is a "public forum" that somehow gives strangers license to engage in wild speculation, make wild accusations, jump to wild conclusions, and otherwise publicly act like total jerks on behalf of those who lost loved one in a terrible tragedy.

How sad.

[strake]

KenV, are you describing Prune or the media in general?

[charliegolf]

Fascinating.

Because this is a "public forum" that somehow gives strangers license to engage in wild speculation, make wild accusations, jump to wild conclusions, and otherwise publicly act like total jerks on behalf of those who lost loved one in a terrible tragedy.

How sad.

Which wild accusations have particularly caught your attention Ken?

CG

[KenV]

Every airshow accident has a negative impact on aviation that far outweighs a thousand successful demonstrations. If there is a fatality to the pilot then even more so, and if to the public then you can expect the hammers of hell to come down.

USN has an old saying: One "Oh $hit" cancels out a thousand "Attaboys". Which is I believe as it should be.

[KenV]

KenV, are you describing Prune or the media in general? Yes. (In other words, both. Although the media in general seems to act less like jerks than some on PPRUNE )

[Dr Jekyll]

If you want a high profile example, the Concorde fleet was grounded immediately after the Paris crash,

No it wasn't.

[Irish Steve]

I would suggest that the reason the Red Arrows don't do aerobatic displays at Shoreham is because of the high ground at 700 Ft directly to the north of the airfield, less than 2 miles away, to fly aerobatics over Shoreham would mean having an 1000 Ft ceiling, and with Gatwick not far away, and the TMA base at FL55, that's effectively limiting them to a horizontal display, which at 1000 Ft is going to look very mundane indeed.

Shoreham has some very specific and difficult issues with terrain, I trained there 20 years ago, and the approach to runway 20 can be very tricky in some winds, due to that high ground and the Arun valley that is just to the north of the airfield. The descent from the loop on Saturday would have been in the area that can be most tricky, with Easterly winds, both downdraught and a tail wind could have been part of the scenario on Saturday, which would not have helped.

[frg7700]

Aerobatics are likely to resume once the storm has died down. It's a temporary measure only.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Kitbag]

Quote:
If you want a high profile example, the Concorde fleet was grounded immediately after the Paris crash,
No it wasn't.

True, Concorde was grounded a few days later, rather like this event. Personally I think it is a sensible decision until mechanical failure is discounted by AAIB/CAA.
Curious to know whether the Gnat has been grounded?

[JointShiteFighter]

My heart still goes out to the victims of this tragedy, but I am quite annoyed over the knee-jerk reaction from the CAA.

As much as I and thousands of others will protest, air shows will never be the same again. I'm just pleased that I was able to attend shows "when they were good".

[Cows getting bigger]

I would speculate that there has been absolutely no knee-jerking from the CAA; they are the DfT's whipping boy.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Indeed JSF and Cows. I suspect someone's been told to do something quick before more simple minded MPs jump on the ban the airshows bandwagon.
CAA becomes more like the alternative meaning of the TLA.....

[Wander00]

Good job it was not them on the train to Paris.........

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Grounding the Hunter is knee jerk, but it's easy to do, with limited consequences as there are so few of them flying.

Quite why the Gnat hasn't, by the same logic, been grounded as well tends to reinforce that the grounding is more to do with public feeling given the tragic consequences of the Hunter crash whereas in the Gnat accident 'only' the pilot died.

[The Old Fat One]

If you want a high profile example, the Concorde fleet was grounded immediately after the Paris crash,

No it wasn't.

Air France grounds Concorde until cause of crash is known - Europe - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/air-france-grounds-concorde-until-cause-of-crash-is-known-707692.html)

Apology accepted

[Cows getting bigger]

The aircraft and why it crashed is not the problem. It's where the aircraft crashed which should be causing consternation.

[Dr Jekyll]

I have no intention of apologising Old Fat One, I have nothing to apologise for. I didn't dispute that Concorde was grounded eventually, I disputed your assertion that it was grounded IMMEDIATELY, it wasn't. BA kept on flying their Concordes for a couple of weeks. It was only grounded after relevant facts came to light early in the investigation.

Amusingly, the report you linked to makes it perfectly clear that BA kept flying them after the crash, so they can't have been grounded.

So despite what you say, the grounding of an entire aircraft type the day after the crash is a highly unusual step.

[salad-dodger]

A terrible tragedy and simply unacceptable that this has happened on a busy public highway. There are a great many people involved with the organisation of this airshow and the flying displays who will need to answer some tough questions. I saw the Gnat crash a few weeks ago and that made me shudder with thoughts of what could have happened, and then this happens.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall quite so many (if any) vintage jets being displayed like this a few years ago. There are many who have said on this on this thread, and the one following the Gnat crash, that these pilots do it to entertain. I don't really buy that. Being much more cynical about this, I feel that it's more about the personal enjoyment for the flyers. Doing it at displays just helps fund it.

Finally, some of you morons who were calling for the pilot not to be named on the early pages of this thread, whilst it was clear that many others had died, should hang your heads in shame.

This was an appalling accident, and clearly very much avoidable.

S-D

[spooky3]

I for one think "over the sea aerobatics" is the only way too go from now on after such a tragic event, anyone who thinks otherwise should try and put themselves in the innocent victims family's shoes, in any case after the forthcoming multi million pound compensation pay outs future insurance premiums will settle the argument £100 per ticket anyone? RIP all affected. Sean.

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:
Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.
How does this fit the Vulcan display?

I may be guilty of a degree of wishful thinking here, but I understand the rule simply prohibits inverted manoeuvres, so no rolling or looping. I would like to hope that tight/climbing turns and steep climbs would still be ok in which case the Vulcan should be ok. I recall back in the good old days that the RAF put together formation drill teams of Hunters, Lightnings, Phantoms etc all formation turns, changes and climbing turns then a spectacular formation break or run down the crowd line before disappearing up to the edge of the troposphere.

Leuchars squadrons used to work up such display teams each year for the home show, long after they fizzled out elsewhere.

FB

[Basil]

The term 'grounded' is often used but frequently misunderstood. Hope this helps:
Grounded Aircraft | Aircraft | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1407&pagetype=90&pageid=8134)
GROUNDED AIRCRAFT

An aircraft requiring modification or repair may become "grounded" until the necessary work has been completed and the aircraft is once again fit for flight.

In many cases, the work is concluded within a few days and the Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) or Permit to Fly will be re-validated by the maintenance organisation responsible.

[Iron Duck]

The BBC has posted a graphic of the flightpath:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/E277/production/_85157975_shoreham_loop_detail_air_crash_624.jpg

I've not seen anyone remark on this anywhere, but it strikes me that looping north of the runway wouldn't display the aircraft to its best advantage to the spectators' pen, and would also require overflying the A27 on the pullout. Would a properly-flown quarter clover in that position have looked good to the spectators? Has anyone seen the sequence card? Was a loop or quarter clover in this location actually intended?

I'm mystified.

[Simplythebeast]

Re the Vulcan, her CAA Permit to fly contains the following statement at
"6.1.1 Aerobatic manoeuvres, intentional spinning, and stalling, are prohibited."

That being the case why would her 'display' be affected in any way as, ( if she has been flown in compliance so far), there would be no problem continuing the same display in future as she isnt conducting 'Aerobatic Manoeuvres'.??

[r75]

I am suprised to see that harrowing film taken seconds after the impact on the road has not been deleted from this site.The terrible tragedy at Shoreham is still unfolding, I for one cannot begin to imagine the sense of loss and shock to the bereaved families and those unfortunate to have seen this happen,let alone be injured. I just wonder where the media are going these days,being able to see such shocking film by accessing the Internet.Perhaps I am getting old but someone just walking about filming such scenes..............Just my thoughts.

[salad-dodger]

That manoeuvre pulled at RIAT (much discussed on here) looked like what might be termed aerobatic. Certainly more than a fly by. So do you think that she has been flown strictly in compliance?



S-D

[Fluffy Bunny]

More bolleaux from the BBC. I wonder which expert drew that up. The a/c ran in along the crowdline before pulling and rolling......:ugh:

[salad-dodger]

r75

I have always found it odd that people have filmed the aftermath of incidents instead of stopping and helping. I used to think that way when seeing footage taken by film crews or photographers, but eventually understood as it was their job. But nowadays everyone with a phone is doing it. It just doesn't feel right to see footage taken on a phone when most of us expect anyone that close to either be helping where they can or dialling 999 for help. They may simply have been too shocked to do anything else.

S-D

[Exnomad]

It would be interesting to see the vulcan trying a few aerobatics. I suppose that was a stock reply, but thought it could have been edited appropiately

[countertorque]

This simply can't be correct, it doesn't tie up with the video(s) does it?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/E277/production/_85157975_shoreham_loop_detail_air_crash_624.jpg

Can somebody with knowledge of displaying at Shoreham please comment.

[andrewn]

Anyone else starting to think (as i am) that this is looking less like an open and shut case of pilot mishandling and more like something out of Andy's control?

Whatever the cause a tragic accident that will have far reaching consequences. Condolences to all those affected.

[salad-dodger]

Anyone else starting to think (as i am) that this is looking less like an open and shut case of pilot mishandling and more like something out of Andy's control?
What are you suggesting andrewn?

I wish the pilot all the best in his recovery, but as the one flying the aircraft......

S-D

[Mogwi]

It is simplistic to suggest that displays should be restricted to coastal sites. Even slightly restricted visibility in these locations can lead to disorientation and fatal accidents. I have certainly experienced some very nasty surprises in my many years of such fast-jet and piston displays around the coasts of two continents.

Let us also not forget the Red's mast strike, which could have been a huge lot worse!

[mopardave]

r75.........agreed!

I am suprised to see that harrowing film taken seconds after the impact on the road has not been deleted from this site.The terrible tragedy at Shoreham is still unfolding, I for one cannot begin to imagine the sense of loss and shock to the bereaved families and those unfortunate to have seen this happen,let alone be injured. I just wonder where the media are going these days,being able to see such shocking film by accessing the Internet.Perhaps I am getting old but someone just walking about filming such scenes..............Just my thoughts.

dear god......wtf were people filming and not helping? Yes, shock makes you do strange things, but trying to put my 28 years in the emergency services to one side, surely if you've the "presence of mind" to pull your phone out to film.......you're not that incapacitated that you can't do the decent thing and bloody well help!!!! :{

Condolences to all concerned.

MD

[Finningley Boy]

Is anyone else getting severe irritation from the media's constant reference to 'stunts' instead of aerobatics? Stunts are what Brendan O'Brien does when he tries to land his Piper Cub on a low loader trundling down the runway or tries to fly beneath a length of string between two poles across the runway!

Absolutely down right infuriating people!!:*

FB

[spooky3]

dear god......wtf were people filming and not helping? Yes, shock makes you do strange things, but trying to put my 28 years in the emergency services to one side, surely if you've the "presence of mind" to pull your phone out to film.......you're not that incapacitated that you can't do the decent thing and bloody well help!!!!

Condolences to all concerned.

MD
mopardave is online now

with you 110%

[salad-dodger]

Is anyone else getting severe irritation from the media's constant reference to 'stunts' instead of aerobatics?

Not particularly, no! This is the language and terminology that the public, their target audience btw, understand. And a good number of them were killed and injured by stunts, aerobatics call them what you will at the weekend.

Your petty annoyances following a tragedy are what grip my ****. Grow up fella.

S-D

[Pontius Navigator]

FB, agree, annoys me too.

I think the Beeb graphic was either lifted from the other thread or created for them by the ppruner on that thread.

[spooky3]

Not particularly, no! This is the language and terminology that the public, their target audience btw, understand. And a good number of them were killed and injured by stunts, aerobatics call them what you will at the weekend.

Your petty annoyances following a tragedy are what grip my ****. Grow up fella

+1 such a trivial comment:mad:

[r75]

"Mopardave" has summed up my thoughts too....100% agree, how could you just walk around and film like that.Perhaps I am old fashioned but surely after the initial shock you would be running around trying to help not film.Best stop there, not a judgement just first impressions.

[andrewn]

FB - yes, but i know some very well meaning people who referred to the Gnat crash in a similar context, and were not meaning to be disrespectful. The difference between an aerial display or aeros and a "stunt" is not widely understood by joe public (never mind the news media).

SD - explicitly I'm saying that many people on here can probably make a relatively informed judgement call as to the primary cause of incidents such as this one based on evidence presented and background knowledge and often this indicates "pilot error". In this particular case i am thinking it may not be as straightforward. In due course we will hopefully find out.

[O-P]

I wondered how long it would take for this thread to degenerate into personal bickering and insults.

Actually, slightly, if not by much, longer than I thought.

[goudie]

would be running around trying to help not film

Perhaps the devastation was so awful the victims were beyond any practical help but I agree, it did seem a rather callous action.
I'm still amazed that somebody managed to pull the pilot clear amidst that fireball.

[Lima Juliet]

Any idea who Darren Sharp is in this clip from the BBC:

Shoreham pilot 'had to make a tough decision' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34046795)

Biggest load of tripe I have ever heard in my opinion. It seems Mr Sharp thinks that the aircraft was put down on the A27 on purpose as he had lost power instead of going for the airfield. Seeing as the runway was clear at the time of the Hunter display, then there would be little point in not using it and going for a busy major A road! :ugh:

Where do the BBC find these so-called 'experts'?!!! I hope they didn't pay him!

LJ

[Tankertrashnav]

Finningley Boy - for what it's worth it annoys me too, and I dont think that by post #300 on this thread when everybody has said RIP to those who died, wished good luck to the Hunter pilot and discussed possible causes of the accident ad nauseam it is particularly inappropriate to mention it. In my case I must stop shouting at the TV every time someone refers to "looping the loop" - a term which probably died out in aviation circles c 1925 but which the media still won't let go :*

[Flying_Anorak]

What utter nonsense from Darren Sharp the so called expert the BBC have given the oxygen of self publicity too and what entitles him to spout his nonsense more than me (with similar years of aviation experience). I hope in time his nonsense will be shown up for what it is.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from r75:
"Perhaps I am getting old but someone just walking about filming such scenes..."

That would indeed be callous, but perhaps we shouldn't jump to conclusions in this case. The photographer and a companion are clearly investigating at least one crushed car, and discussing if there's anything they can do to help. We don't know what the camera was, or how it was being held. It might even be a head-mounted camera, as may also have been used by the hotelier who stalked the Tunis gunman, although I don't know if they are available with a zoom lens. I believe the emergency services are increasingly using similar devices themselves.

[Wander00]

Straight question - what happens to powered flying controls in the Hunter in the event of loss of engine power - no, not second guessing the investigation, just interested


Dreadful accident and heartfelt condolences to all involved in any way

[Flying_Anorak]

To bring discussions back to a more technical level, can I ask anyone on here who may be familiar with MB's Mark 4 or 5 seat (which I believe is appropriate for this mark of aircraft whether there is an interlock between the canopy jettisoning and seat sequencing? Reason I ask is that in one well known tabloid's sequence of very graphic photos you can clearly see at the point of impact the unique T bird canopy being thrown open, presumably by the force of impact, but still attached by the hinge. The next photo in the sequence shows the canopy closed again seemingly having remained hinged somehow.

With my limited experience of the two seat Hunters I recall the canopy to be a substantial affair, much like the Lightning T5 which as the Thunder City accident showed, stopped the seat from sequencing if the canopy has not jettisoned. Is i the same on the two seat Hunter? Parts of the media tonight are suggesting that Andy was found outside of the aircraft and even the BBC mentioned the hazard the seat presented to the recovery but there is no sign of the gas tube I would expect to see had the ejection been initiated.

[Captain Kirk]

Wander - if the PFCs fail they revert to manual - the controls are heavy but the ac is perfectly controllable. But, IIRC, as long as the engine is windmilling the hydraulic pump will be developing pressure and the controls will remain powered unless an excessive load is placed upon them.

From the video, there is no obvious indication of an engine malfunction - but it can not be entirely discounted, especially a partial compressor failure where the engine keeps running but develops significantly less thrust.

That said - Andrewn, I'm not sure what you are referring to; I can see no evidence of mechanical failure, etc.

[LOMCEVAK]

In a Hunter T7 or T8 there is no interlock between the canopy jettison system and the ejection seat firing mechanism. The canopy should jettison when one of the handles is pulled but if it does not the seat smashes through the top perspex panel.

If the hydraulics fail you get at least 1 1/2 full deflection cycles from each of the elevator and aileron accumulators before the controls revert to manual; this is checked after shutdown on an airtest.

[XV490]

According to the Telegraph, the venerable Capt 'Winkle' Brown, who was there, is suggesting pilot error.

I suppose you'd have to call that 'expert opinion' - if nothing else...

As for Mr Sharp on the BBC interview, the least said, the better.

[dervish]

Any idea who Darren Sharp is in this clip from the BBC:

Shoreham pilot 'had to make a tough decision' - BBC News

Biggest load of tripe I have ever heard in my opinion. It seems Mr Sharp thinks that the aircraft was put down on the A27 on purpose as he had lost power instead of going for the airfield. Seeing as the runway was clear at the time of the Hunter display, then there would be little point in not using it and going for a busy major A road!

Where do the BBC find these so-called 'experts'?!!! I hope they didn't pay him!


I heard him on Radio 5 yesterday. They also had a "respected" aviation journalist (David somebody) who said something like "No publicity is bad publicity" in the context of airshows continuing and people attending. Better just to STFU.

[ORAC]

. We don't know what the camera was, or how it was being held. It might even be a head-mounted camera Yes we do. Second half of the video after they have crossed the road and are approaching the crushed car; the sun is behind the cameraman and casting his shadow on the road, he is holding his phone elevated in his right hand.

[Above The Clouds]

Any idea who Darren Sharp is in this clip from the BBC:

Shoreham pilot 'had to make a tough decision' - BBC News

Biggest load of tripe I have ever heard in my opinion. It seems Mr Sharp thinks that the aircraft was put down on the A27 on purpose as he had lost power instead of going for the airfield. Seeing as the runway was clear at the time of the Hunter display, then there would be little point in not using it and going for a busy major A road!

Where do the BBC find these so-called 'experts'?!!! I hope they didn't pay him!

LJ


I have just watched the clip with "expert Darren Sharpe" and words truly fail me, but that will be the AAIB investigation completed.

[Pontius Navigator]

I have no intention of apologising Old Fat One, I have nothing to apologise for. I didn't dispute that Concorde was grounded eventually, I disputed your assertion that it was grounded IMMEDIATELY, it wasn't. BA kept on flying their Concordes for a couple of weeks. It was only grounded after relevant facts came to light early in the investigation.

Amusingly, the report you linked to makes it perfectly clear that BA kept flying them after the crash, so they can't have been grounded.

So despite what you say, the grounding of an entire aircraft type the day after the crash is a highly unusual step.

As you correctly say, the entire Concorde fleet(s) was not grounded.

However it is equally true to say the entire Hunter fleet has been grounded; if hasn't.

What is true in both cases is that the National authorities have grounded all of that type on their registers; the grounding would only be advisory for foreign registered aircraft.

What have the Swiss done?

[Finningley Boy]

FB, agree, annoys me too.

I think the Beeb graphic was either lifted from the other thread or created for them by the ppruner on that thread.

Indeed PN,

Tanker Trash Nav,

I'll take it on advice you're quite right of course. I was simply making an observation - as many have done - about the media's professional sweeping comments, some often chosen carefully to affect a certain opinion and 'stunt' sounds far less dignified than 'aerobatics'. And I'm sure nobody would wilfully intend to trivialise what I'm sure are sincere condolences from one and all

By the Way, Salad Dodger,

My comments are simply an observation of yet further poor media presentation, despite the likelihood that they are always speaking to experts. They use simplistic, dramatic and frivolous language when it suits, and don't ever try and interpret my comments on what, I'll grant, is a miner point, as an indication of my immaturity or lack of appreciation for the tragedy which took place on Saturday, you're wrong. Now I don't know if you lost anyone in the accident, if so you have my deepest sympathy, but if this is just you having a pop by trying to represent the opinion and emotion of millions then It's now quite clear to me that you are particularly standoffishly arrogant, I've read your unwarranted vitriol in previous posts against others. Just lighten up and broaden your sense of accommodation.

FB

[Grimweasel]

One photo quite clearly shows pilot slumped fwd in seat prior to impact. Could this be g lock where pilot blacked out? Do these older pilots still undergo strict medicals that allow for high G aerobatics? Same with Gnat in my opinion. Both crashed after performing high g manoeuvres. Look at Reds crash few years back. Same thing. Even happens to the medically fit pros.

[Stanwell]

I'm surprised that Eric 'Winkle' Brown was reported as having opined that 'pilot-error' was a major contributor to the crash.
I'd thought he was a bit more astute than that.

[Seafurysmith]

Have to agree with the comments on so called expert Darren, how could someone with 21 years flying experience reckon he saw the Hunter take off? Thought it flew out of North Weald! I was there on the Beach and heard her transiting from the east then saw her turn and run in to start the display. Thought the runway at Shoreham was too short for a Hunter T7 to land or take off?

[BEagle]

The Hunter 7 has a gaseous anti-g system; if that fails unexpectedly you might well grey out. But it's a pretty reliable system and the +g available in the accident manoeuvre would seem to have been less than would cause the pilot to lose consciousness if the anti-g system failed.

However, one video shows wing rock prior to ground impact; to me this would indicate that the pilot was conscious and attempting to recover from the dive.

The 100-ser Avon is prone to compressor surge with rapid throttle movement as the fuel control units are rather primitive. Disturbingly, an accident report into an earlier Hunter F4 accident at Dunsfold included the statement:

....records kept on a computerised database between 1980 and 1992 showed 22 cases involving the Avon Mk 122 engine where engine speed had dropped and subsequent engineering investigation had not established a clear cause. Anecdotal evidence indicated that Avon Mk 122 engines had suffered from unexplained power reductions from time to time during RAF service, but in most cases the aircraft had returned safely and the subsequent RAF engineering investigations, including related engine ground runs, had failed to identify associated causes or to reproduce the symptoms.

(The Dunsfold accident considered that it was possible that the pilot had operated the HP pump isolation switch in error, when reaching for the display smoke switch which had been installed nearby. Unless the throttle is closed when the HPPIS is selected to ISOLATE, this would have caused sufficient overfuelling to destroy the engine very quickly, which would have been obvious to external observers. As there was no such pre-impact fire seen in any of the Shoreham videos, I doubt whether any HPPIS operation had been made in this instance).

Until the AAIB has completed its work, technical cause cannot be ruled out. So those self-professed 'experts' pointing their fingers at aircrew error need to keep open minds whilst the real experts do their sad work. I am also very surprised that Capt. Brown has suggested that pilot error was the cause of this accident.

Nevertheless, pulling to the buffet with a partial loss of thrust would lead to a greater than anticipated rate of descent. If that happens in the last quarter of a looping manoeuvre at low level, chances of recovery to level flight are slim.

Raising the base height for jet aircraft aerobatics by non-military operators would seem reasonable, so I hope that the CAA's initial ban will only apply until a thorough analysis of other options has been completed.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I see the Daily Telegraph are being equally daft at roling out "experts"; anyone know who Leslie Hatcher, 71, a former RAF aerobatics instructor (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11822238/Shoreham-Air-Show-crash-Search-for-victims-enters-fourth-day-latest.html) is?

[Alber Ratman]

Spot on post BEagle.

[Ali Qadoo]

I see the Daily Telegraph are being equally daft at roling out "experts"; anyone know who Leslie Hatcher, 71, a former RAF aerobatics instructor (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11822238/Shoreham-Air-Show-crash-Search-for-victims-enters-fourth-day-latest.html) is? Roland, he's quoted in The Times too, spouting exactly the same nonsense. Why the broadsheets can't find someone who knows what they're on about is beyond me. Even the Currant Bun tracked down C***g P*****e who's a TP, has displayed the Hunter and certainly knows his stuff.

I'd have thought practically anyone on this thread could've provided a more sensible analysis than Mr Hatcher.

[Monsun]

Roland

Les Hatcher is a former Lightning pilot who passed through the OCU in 1967 and subsequently flew with 19, 56 and 111 Squadrons

[bigglesbrother]

A reply to Roland Pulfrew.... (did you ever roll and pull through?)

Yes,

I knew Les Hatcher when he was a simulator instructor at RAF Coltishall in the 1960's when the first Lightning Mk1s were introduced into RAF service with AFDS & 74(F) Squadron.

Les Hatcher flew Hunters & Lightnings.
Many years later in 1981 he won the Wright Jubilee Trophy for best display by an RAF pilot, a fiercely contested award for RAF QFI contestants.

This is an innovative aerobatic competition in which contestants push their aircraft to aerodynamic limits – but they remain within aerodynamic limits and RAF safety boundaries or face immediate disqualification.

[Finningley Boy]

According to the Telegraph, the venerable Capt 'Winkle' Brown, who was there, is suggesting pilot error.

I suppose you'd have to call that 'expert opinion' - if nothing else...

As for Mr Sharp on the BBC interview, the least said, the better.


That's probably an indication of his ingrained depth of knowledge and ability to read the circumstances from the footage he's seen, however, we shall see, as the saying goes. I'm referring to Captian Brown of course!

FB

[Wingswinger]

Hello Beagle,

I am also very surprised that Capt. Brown has suggested that pilot error was the cause of this accident.


I'm not. I hesitate to speculate but I'm going to. First of all credentials: During my time in the Service I flew about 800 hours in Hunter T7/F6/FGA9.

From looking at the various videos of the tragedy is seems to me that the aircraft spent a few seconds in the back-side of the loop when there seemed to be little or no pitching going on. It appears that there was some flap down prior to impact. It is certainly seen to be down over the top of the manoeuvre. Why would he have used flap while inverted when the need is to unload to make the manoeuvre as round as possible? Using flap in the pull out is not only not necessary, it exposes the aircraft to the well-known Hunter flap-trap. His speed at the bottom of the manoeuvre would I guess have been in the order of 360-400kts, more than enough for the flap-trap to have seriously limited elevator authority.

The pause in the vertical suggests not only pilot re-adjustment of flight path but also raises the possibility of G-LOC, the insidious nature of which I posted about in the Gnat thread. AH, with whom I had a passing acquaintanceship, is a BA captain. On which fleet I don't know. If he is LH, when did he fly his last trip and was he still jet-lagged/fatigued? One thing I do know is that things which do not mix with flying FJs close to the ground are fatigue, hang-overs, the after effects of minor ailments and medication but the AAIB will no doubt be very interested in all that.

[clareprop]

I'd have thought practically anyone on this thread could've provided a more sensible analysis than Mr Hatcher.
My dear chap, positively thousands appear to have a go on a regular basis.

[XV490]

That's probably an indication of his ingrained depth of knowledge and ability to read the circumstances from the footage he's seen, however, we shall see, as the saying goes. I'm referring to Captian Brown of course!


But surely the point is that any such comment while AH is fighting for his life in hospital utterly uncalled for?

[Dominator2]

I have been reading this thread with great interest and amid the alarmist and disingenuous there are some sincere and well thought through comments. The part that I would like to comment on, and ask questions about, is the present regulations and guidance concerning display flying. I do not wish to point a finger at any one or any organisation, but to understand how we got to where we are and where we go in the future.
I have not been involved in the display circuit for many years and so am not conversant with current procedures. Many years ago the majority of airshows, particularly the large ones, were run by the military RAF/RN/Army. Equally, the majority of high performance aircraft were operated and regulated by the military. Over the past 25 years, due to a number of reasons, the organisation, control and participation has drifted into the civilian domain.

I was under the impression that a Display Organiser would be required to see participants Display Card in advance of the event. This would include Display Axis, Display Sequence, Minimum Heights, Gate Heights and Speeds. I understand that this is only true at the large events such as RIAT? I am led to understand that some pilots even change their display at the time or even make it up as they display. Also I would have assumed that proof of the pilot’s DA and currency would be provided. I would have thought that it was incumbent for any Organiser to in possession of this information prior to a display being approved?
Am I correct in the belief that the minimum requirement is for the pilot to possess a PPL and then gain a DA to be able to perform at an airshow? Am I also correct in the belief that to fly a high performance jet only requires a rudimentary (CAA Approved) workup programme? Once DA is granted, what are the currency requirements for each type of aircraft and how long does a DA on type last?

I am asking these questions because we involved in aviation in this country owe it to the public to be true and honest. There is no doubt that we all live in a safer society and expectations are that all is being done to keep us safe. The airshow world does not, in my opinion, stand-up well to close scrutiny at present. Mark Swann’s actions may seem to be an overreaction but I would believe that he knows that improvements have to be made.

We must be honest and do a thorough review of ALL regulations concerning airshows and display flying so that we can continue to enjoy our aviation heritage Safely for years to come.

[H Peacock]

I'm with Wingswinger here. The Hunter did not appear to be pitching anywhere near enough in the third quarter of the loop. Now there could be many reasons why, including a technical snag or simply pilot distraction looking for the display line or dealing with something in-house. The pitch rate did increase dramatically in the final quarter, but by then it was too late.

Regarding the venue, some of the built-up areas do encroach on the airfield, but apart from having to avoid flying over the college, ie having to extend behind it or tighten inside it, it is certainly no worse than many other venues. Simply bad luck that, if the accident was inevitable, AH crashed onto the A27 and almost parallel to it.

It could well be a long list, but I fear the likes of Duxford and Farnborough are now going to have to have a long hard think about their display regulations.

[R4H]

With regards to comments about flaps and elevator effectiveness. A couple of notches of flap was regularly used during manoeuvers to increase rate of turn/decrease radius of turn. There was no problem in the use of flap during normal manoeuver speeds. The only problem came at M0.9 when the nose would pitch down and you could wreck the elevator controls by continuing to pull. The normal mistake was to have finished manoeuvring or run out of a fight with a notch or two of flap selected. At M0.9 you would soon realise that you still had flap selected!!!!!!!!!!!! Simply relaxing back pressure on the stick and raising the flaps solved the problem.
The accident aircraft would not have been anywhere near this speed.

[Martin the Martian]

It could well be a long list, but I fear the likes of Duxford and Farnborough are now going to have to have a long hard think about their display regulations.

A very long list, unfortunately. As a somewhat unscientific exercise I overlaid the position of the crash relative to the end of the runway (being unsure of the datum point for the display) over a number of regular airshow venues and in quite a few of them the impact was on a road or buildings. I strongly suspect that the 2016 airshow season will be much smaller than this year, and Duxford and Farnborough in particular will, as you say, be left with much thinking to do.

[Tiger_mate]

Air Display administration:

The airshow organisers would have a copy of the following:

Pilots Medical
Aircraft Insurance
Permit to fly/ Airworthiness confirmation.
CAA Display Authorisation
***The above is sometimes combined into a display pilots self certification, but even then dates and license numbers are documented.
Next of kin POC
Display ribbon diagram. (display routine/ notes / pictorial diagram)

A DA once issued does not require another check as long as currency is maintained. Minimum 3 displays or practice in the last 30 days. In practise, display pilots mostly lose their qualification towards the end of october after the Duxford end of season display. This includes BBMF whose aircraft enter winter servicing at about that time. A DA may not have been issued on the specific aircraft type so a JP Based DA could be used on the Hunter by a Hunter qualified pilot. This means that for example the RNHF Swordfish display DA may be issued after display in the RNHF flights Chipmunk. Essential as Swordfish winter servicing usually runs late into the spring.

IMHO the regulation in place was sufficient. It will be difficult to undo yesterdays regulation and will cost the industry operators / owners business. A Meteor et al in horizontal flight will not justify cost in anyones budget.

[Wingswinger]

R4H,


Flap trap
With regards to comments about flaps and elevator effectiveness. A couple of notches of flap was regularly used during manoeuvers to increase rate of turn/decrease radius of turn. There was no problem in the use of flap during normal manoeuver speeds. The only problem came at M0.9 when the nose would pitch down and you could wreck the elevator controls by continuing to pull. The normal mistake was to have finished manoeuvring or run out of a fight with a notch or two of flap selected. At M0.9 you would soon realise that you still had flap selected!!!!!!!!!!!! Simply relaxing back pressure on the stick and raising the flaps solved the problem.
The accident aircraft would not have been anywhere near this speed.

Even one notch of flap could produce a significant nose-down trim change at the speed at which it would have been flying and therefore degraded the elevator authority. If AH had been subject to G-LOC it is possible that he may have forgotten about the flap. I only mention it because I experienced it myself albeit many moons ago.

[jindabyne]

Wings,

Even one notch of flap could produce a significant nose-down trim change at the speed at which it would have been flying

True, but that's not what R4H was rightly describing. With 23 degrees flap selected throughout the manoeuvre in question, there would be no 'significant' nose down trim change.

[RNHF_PILOT]

This means that for example the RNHF Swordfish display DA may be issued after display in the RNHF flights Chipmunk. Essential as Swordfish winter servicing usually runs late into the spring.

Factually incorrect. The RNHF aircraft are military registered and flown in accordance with the MRPs. Therefore a separate military PDA is held by RNHF pilots for each individual type.

[Ali Qadoo]

I've been asked to do a piece for ITN re the Shoreham accident on their evening news to be filmed at Brooklands today (25 Aug). Given that I'm in the UAE, I can't do it. If anyone feels they can add some real expert opinion and can make Weybridge by teatime, send me a PM and I'll forward you the contact details.

[Genstabler]

BEagle, BEagle SHUN! One step forward, MARCH!

[BLATCH]

If LH is 71, then in 1960 he would have been 16. A Lightning simulator instructor? Something wrong somewhere!

[Hueymeister]

One photo quite clearly shows pilot slumped fwd in seat prior to impact. Could this be g lock where pilot blacked out? Do these older pilots still undergo strict medicals that allow for high G aerobatics? Same with Gnat in my opinion. Both crashed after performing high g manoeuvres. Look at Reds crash few years back. Same thing. Even happens to the medically fit pros.

Where did you see that Grim? All the shots I can see, the pilot is upright in the seat.
The wing drop prior to the impact may be due to a late pull, doesn't look like a deliberate control input, but that's pure conjecture on my part. The AAIB report will no doubt be thorough...unlike the BBC's reporting.

[athonite]

It's interesting that wingswinger mentions medical fitness and combining displaying with jets with a career as an airline pilot. Perhaps flight time limitations need to include display flying, I know this will not be popular. On the other hand the general public and CAA expect the crew of a commercial jet to be rested under flight time limitations, so equally the public should have the same expectations of a display pilot.

Likewise, should display pilots be required to hold or have held a professional pilots qualification (ATPL/RAF wings). I refer of course to the Hurricance that crashed previously at Shoreham, the Pilot (age 49) held a PPL no evidence having been trained in aerobatics, and oddly only a class two medical. Likewise there is a JP3 display pilot in the UK, with 500 hrs on jets, who also claims to have displayed the Hunter T7, again on a PPL, medical unknown. I'm not sure if this was the pilot involved in the Southport/Blackpool JP near accident? Unless I have my facts wrong, I find this a bit worrying as I would expect a 1500 hours of flying fast jets for a display pilot. Likewise in the case of the recent Gnat accident, the Pilot wasclaimed to be ex RAF, but never progressed onto an OCU, again I'm doubtful of his experience to display.

The display pilots on the Hunter for this season were aged 51 and 61, and I'm assuming held a class one medical. I just wonder how much is known about G-LOC in older pilots, when it's not unknown in young and very fit RAF pilots, such as in the Red Arrows accident. Without doubt both the Hunter T7 pilots are highly experienced, and much has been made of the pilot in the accident as being an ex-Harrier pilot. But, if he is a BA captain, based on seniority this must have been some time ago (15 years +) since he regular flew fast jets.

Finally, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned on this thread the L29 display accident near Manston, where the aircraft also failed to recover from a loop. The Pilot was 61, he has flown in the Red Arrows but that was I think back in the seventies. I wondering if at the time if this flagged up any warnings, did the AAIB or CAA considered the effect of G on pilots as they become older?

[Megaton]

There's as much ill-informed speculation on here as there is in R & N. For the record, AH is a short haul captain and part-time so neither fatigue nor jet lag are likely causes. Furthermore, being part time meant he had plenty of opportunity to stay current and practised in display flying.

[Courtney Mil]

Unsubstantiated speculation and misinformation:

It seems Mr Sharp thinks that the aircraft was put down on the A27 on purpose as he had lost power instead of going for the airfield.

Mr Sharp has no way of knowing about the condition of the engine nor Andy's intentions. The clip was heavily edited so his comments may have been misrepresented or he has made a complete fool of himself talking about stuff he doesn't understand.

there is no obvious indication of an engine malfunction

I understand that's an observation, but there are plenty of failure modes that may not be obvious from a distance.


As for waiting for the facts. A complete video of the accident sequence is available as well as a plethora of images - many an accident enquiry has been conducted in its entirety without any such material to draw upon. Yes, there will be other details to consider, but the basic physics of why this ac came into contact with the ground can be deduced by those with adequate experience.

Sorry, that is absolute hoop. An amateur video from a hand-held camera does not show a fraction of the detail about the state of the aircraft or the pilot or to assume parameters from which to draw any conclusions at all. It can form a part of the picture, but it will be the forensic evidence that will answer some of the important questions. The camera is roughly tracking the aircraft with few fixed points of reference for much of the footage for estimating pitch angles, pitch rate, altitude, angle of attack or aircraft speed - there are some. The video is useful to suggest that the wings are still attached, the aircraft did not appear to be on fire, etc, and it may be useful to confirm or discount possible factors later. But will only once the investigators have ALL THE FACTS they can reasonably establish.



explicitly I'm saying that many people on here can probably make a relatively informed judgement call as to the primary cause of incidents such as this one based on evidence presented and background knowledge and often this indicates "pilot error". In this particular case i am thinking it may not be as straightforward.

If by "evidence presented" you mean a video, then I would suggest there are insufficient data to go on. "Many people on here" have more sense than to make any form of judgement nor to print any such speculation here. Unfortunately, that is clearly not the case for everyone. You appear to have examined enough "evidence" to conclude that this case may not be straightforward. Well done.

there is no sign of the gas tube I would expect to see had the ejection been initiated.

You would not see a "gas tube" unless the main ejection gun had fired. One can initiate ejection, but the seat will not fire if an interlock or failure interrupts the sequence. The lack of visible "gas tube" would not necessarily mean ejection had not been initiated.


One photo quite clearly shows pilot slumped fwd in seat prior to impact. Could this be g lock where pilot blacked out? Do these older pilots still undergo strict medicals that allow for high G aerobatics? Same with Gnat in my opinion. Both crashed after performing high g manoeuvres. Look at Reds crash few years back. Same thing. Even happens to the medically fit pros.

It's called gloc, sometimes g-loc, and of course it will be a factor for the investigation, but It would be highly unlikely at the airspeeds used to fly a loop.

Pilots do have medicals, early fifties is hardly old, but as you say it can even happen to medically fit pros, so the question isn't worth asking unless you're trying to make a point. As for your speculation about the same factor causing three separate incidents, the less said the better. "Same thing"?

I'm surprised that Eric 'Winkle' Brown was reported as having opined that 'pilot-error' was a major contributor to the crash.
I'd thought he was a bit more astute than that.

Indeed. He should certainly know better. A stupid supposition with no basis in evidence. Leslie Hatcher's remarks are even more out of order. He should hang his head in shame.

Using flap in the pull out is not only not necessary, it exposes the aircraft to the well-known Hunter flap-trap. His speed at the bottom of the manoeuvre would I guess have been in the order of 360-400kts, more than enough for the flap-trap to have seriously limited elevator authority.

If you're going to set yourself up as an expert, at least make statements that are true. To hit M0.9 at or near sea level he would have needed to have been doing around 540kts, well beyond your "guess". The use of flap in Hunter aerobatics has been standard and safe practice for decades and its effect well-understood at slower speeds. Now I'm going to speculate: you clearly missed something important during your 800 hrs on Hunters.

On a personal note, I wish Andy a successful recovery and I hope his family and friends are not unduly affected by some of the unnecessary speculation and I'll-informed comment here and in the media.

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:
It could well be a long list, but I fear the likes of Duxford and Farnborough are now going to have to have a long hard think about their display regulations.
A very long list, unfortunately. As a somewhat unscientific exercise I overlaid the position of the crash relative to the end of the runway (being unsure of the datum point for the display) over a number of regular airshow venues and in quite a few of them the impact was on a road or buildings. I strongly suspect that the 2016 airshow season will be much smaller than this year, and Duxford and Farnborough in particular will, as you say, be left with much thinking to do.


MTM,

So which airfields have you placed your - to scale - overlay onto in order to predict a much smaller number of airshows next year?

FB

[Dominator2]

Tiger Mate,

Thanks for trying to answer some of my questions.

You state that the following is always available to airshow organisers.
Display ribbon diagram. (display routine/ notes / pictorial diagram)
Is it not true that at some displays/airshows, pilots change or makeup their displays in real time?

IMHO the "read across" DA on different types is too liberal in this day and age.

You also state;
IMHO the regulation in place was sufficient. It will be difficult to undo yesterdays regulation and will cost the industry operators / owners business. A Meteor et al in horizontal flight will not justify cost in anyones budget.

You imply that the regulations should not be more rigorous because it will impact on the pockets of operators/owners. I would answer that it is imperative that displaying jets at airshows in the UK is not seen as the domain of a select few rich/connected pilots who are allowed to self regulate to a great extent!

[BEagle]

jindabyne wrote:

Wings,
Even one notch of flap could produce a significant nose-down trim change at the speed at which it would have been flying.

True, but that's not what R4H was rightly describing. With 23 degrees flap selected throughout the manoeuvre in question, there would be no 'significant' nose down trim change.

An admirable concise post from a very experienced Hunter pilot and QFI :ok:

If I recall correctly, use of 23 flap in ACM caused an initial nose-down trim change, which in the environment of dynamic ACM was easily overcome by a firm elevator movement. The effect of 23 flap gave an increased turn rate, which was advantageous in getting to a sight-on solution, but the increased drag meant that it was only a temporary advantage?

Whereas flying certain manoeuvres with 23 flap was entirely normal for formation aerobatic teams.

[Hawker 800]

Likewise there is a JP3 display pilot in the UK, with 500 hrs on jets, who also claims to have displayed the Hunter T7, again on a PPL, medical unknown. I'm not sure if this was the pilot involved in the Southport/Blackpool JP near accident?

You refer to Neil McCarthy, obviously. Probably a class 2 medical one would assume. Then again, you know what they say about assumptions... I don't believe it was him that was involved in the Blackpool incident. As far as I know, he only ever positioned the Hunter to displays and Chris or Andy did the poling in the shows.

I don't see an issue with PPl's or class 2 medical holders displaying aircraft. I was happy enough to watch Bob Hoover display on an FAA class 3 medical. There are numerous extremely competent DA holders that 'only' have a Private Pilot's Licence. There are numerous ATPL's displaying aircraft with less time in the seat doing aero's than the PPL pilots.

This aircraft was a stablemate of the Gnat at North Weald sadly.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SD2015003.pdf

[LOMCEVAK]

Tiger Mate,

Not quite correct on DAs and currency. To display you need to have flown 3 displays or practices in the previous 90 days, one of which must have been on type. All of the single engine jets are category G and a DA is needed for each type and is named on the DA paperwork. Therefore, you cannot display a Hunter on a JP DA.

[Captain Kirk]

Courtney - I didn't say that the video presented all of the facts but it certainly reveals enough to determine the basics; indeed, you very helpfully list most of them, but actually not all. Some things cannot be discounted and any additional evidence is always helpful. However, it is often the case that ALL of the facts are never determined beyond question - and reasonable judgement upon the most likely sequence of events is made by people with relevant experience. Some members of these forums have that experience - most do not. Some of the comments on here are misleading and unhelpful - and unprofessional - but then this is a largely unregulated forum of, mostly, amateurs. So I recommend that you stop attempting to be the arbiter of accident investigation procedures or to police the internet. Have you actually been a part of an accident investigation? Incidentally, I also acknowledged that some engine failures are not obvious, so please do not attempt to score a point with a selective quote.

Trust me when I say that there is enough evidence (and it is evidence) to discount many of the wild (deliberate attempt to land) and not-so-wild (g-loc) theories circulating and to narrow the LIKELY cause, notwithstanding contributory factors which are always harder to determine. What the video does NOT show is valuable too but I'm not going to spell that out for you.

The indisputable fact of this accident is that AH (whom I know and respect) ran out of height. How and why will form the basis of the investigation.

I know your motives are good Courtney and that you generally post good sense, but your protestations in this instance are not (wholly) justified. Having complete tosh spouted by that clown on the BBC is downright irritating of course, but given the inevitable scrutiny that an accident of this nature will attract, neither is it appropriate to try and draw a cloak of secrecy across the event, as we were once inclined to. Indeed, some early, measured and informed comments to the media might have spared us the 'he was going too fast and had to put it down on the A27' nonsense! I'm not attributing blame - and neither will the AAIB incidentally - I have just discussed some of the more obvious features of this accident - features which may be seen in a different context after a full investigation but which will not themselves change. This is, after all, a forum for discussing aviation related issues...

[Phil_R]

Likewise, should display pilots be required to hold or have held a professional pilots qualification (ATPL/RAF wings).

Couldn't that mean someone had spent some time flying transport aircraft, which wouldn't be any qualification to display a historic jet fighter?

P

[JointShiteFighter]

Likewise, should display pilots be required to hold or have held a professional pilots qualification (ATPL/RAF wings)

Couldn't that mean someone had spent some time flying transport aircraft, which wouldn't be any qualification to display a historic jet fighter?

Agreed, Phil.

As well as qualifications on paper, there is the issue of currency. How is currency maintained in the civilian world flying similar, ex-military aircraft?*

*I am in no way doubting the experience, the currency or the credentials of the pilot in question.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Indeed, what makes a multi thousand hour tourist tube operator any more qualified than a standard weekend flying PPL holder to fly an ex-mil fast jet?

Nothing. Neither is trained or current or has experience relevant to the type.

Maintaining currency isn't a problem, as long as you have the currency (£1500-2500 p/h by a bit of trawling for operating costs of various vintage jets).

[Basil]

The clip was heavily edited
Something to be aware of before talking to those types at all.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, Basil!

Captain Kirk,

Your subtle change of direction there makes all the difference.

but the basic physics of why this ac came into contact with the ground can be deduced by those with adequate experience.

there is enough evidence (and it is evidence) to discount many of the wild (deliberate attempt to land) and not-so-wild (g-loc) theories circulating and to narrow the LIKELY cause, notwithstanding contributory factors which are always harder to determine

It is your initial claim that the cause of the accident can be deduced from the video that I totally disagree with. Your new statement that the video can (help to - my inserted words) discount causes is much more reasonable. And it is because the video alone is insufficient to determine the cause (rather than help to discount them) that we must wait for all the facts. "As for all the facts" in your words.

Have you actually been a part of an accident investigation?

One accident investigation and one incident BoI as President. In the latter case I spent weeks exploring the limits of extracting evidence from photographic material; that evidence was amazingly fruitful, but eventually only served to point me in the direction of the hard evidence.

Edit to add: I agree about "Indeed, some early, measured and informed comments to the media might have spared us the 'he was going too fast and had to put it down on the A27' nonsense!". Someone involved with the show or those investigating it making an official statement may have helped to put some balance into the whole thing. I doubt there could have been many solid answers, but at least a stated position and an explanation of how the recovery and investigation would go forward. Sadly, I suspect the press would still have gone after the "experts" for something more sensational.

[RRAAMJET]

Totally correct, Phil and Bunny. 20k-plus hours in airliners has left me with ZERO recent experience in aeros and I wouldn't dream of attempting even a ferry flight in a pointy thing these days. Last aeros I flew were wobbly indeed in a Yak 15 years ago….not sure I could remember how to even strap into a MB seat. And then there's my meal-tray honed physique…and I have a class 1 med.

I have participated in an accident investigation, and the info obtained from film is amazing, particularly if the characteristics of the cameras used are known. Heat signature, energy levels, control deflections etc are all possible. If there is no recorder aboard or radar ground recording, film is IT. In this case, I believe a professional company was recording the display, and their recording in HD will no doubt be available to the AIB.

Godwilling, a recovery of AH will be a blessing in many ways, also.

[Trogger]

Sad and tragic accident.

Haven't read through the previous pages in the thread, but hopefully the pilot will pull through and be able to assist AAIB with their investigation.

[Martin the Martian]

MTM,

So which airfields have you placed your - to scale - overlay onto in order to predict a much smaller number of airshows next year?

FB

Hey, I said it was unscientific, but so far it includes Duxford (M11 -no surprise really), Culdrose (row of houses next to the viewing enclosure at one end, A394 at the other), Cosford (the railway station) and Waddington (A15) amongst others. At Farnborough it is well within the airfield perimeter, and at Dunsfold it is open countryside.

But if I have done it, you can be sure that somebody in an insurance office is doing the same, with as little science as I used, and will be using it as a reason to bump up air display premiums by two or three hundred percent for next year.

[athonite]

To clarify, I think that ideally the 1500 hrs needs to be fast jet or mix of fast jet/rotary as a test pilot.

But previous fast jet experience is degraded with time, possibly. As previously mentioned, the L29 accident, was many years after the pilot had left the Red arrows. There is no easy answer to experience or currency.

I think the CAA are going to have to take a holistic approach to all this!

Finally as to SEP display aircraft, such as Spitfires, Hurricanes, etc., the CAA might want to adopt the very sensible rules set down by the RAF and BBMF in terms of currency.

[ETOPS]

Help in understanding what happened here may come from this operation.

PlanesTV Live | PlanesTV (http://planestv.com/content/planestv-live)

The Shoreham airshow was professionally filmed and streamed live on the web - I would imagine the footage is already available to the AAIB

[Monsun]

I really hope that AH comes through this and recovers but would question whether he will be able to help the AAIB in any meaningful way.

My CFI had a serious accident the year after he taught me to fly and was in intensive care for a week. When he came to he couldn't remember a thing about what happened.

[Fluffy Bunny]

ETOPS & RAAMJET. The footage from planes TV is indeed in full 1080p and was very detailed from the crowdline, with the aircraft almost full frame and in good focus. Thankfully, it and the many "pirate" copies have been pulled from the internet.

[Courtney Mil]

Good post, ETOPS. And it does raise a point I touched on earlier. Not only are these cameras very high quality (as well as high def), they are also on tripods. That takes out a lot of the variables from hand-held. Footage from a level, known point of reference provides a datum from which to do meaningful analysis of the display. Allied with forensic physical evidenence and statements, their footage will be able to help with investigation.

PlanesTV may well lose their original footage for a while, backups are a must.

[Captain Kirk]

Thanks Courtney. To be clear though, once you discount a bunch of causes you are left with just a few to decide between - I do think that the video provides enough to make some very clear deductions. I will not post the conclusions that I arrive at because I am conscious that they are then open to misquoting, or could be used maliciously - but over a beer among fellow-professional I think we could arrive at a 'most-likely' explanation already, notwithstanding some inevitable (but only contributory) unknowns. And we must, of course, consider all options, and not shy away from some just because we feel that it is an insult to us or our colleagues. We have similar experience btw.

Bottom line is that it is bloody awful. Per ardua.

[LOMCEVAK]

There was a comment made about age and GLOC potential. In all of the aviation medicine research into g tolerance there is no indication that increasing age results in an increase in susceptibility to either loss of vision or loss of consciousness.

After some incorrect comments on the use of flap in the Hunter I think that most of them have been corrected. However, to summarise:

There are no g or rolling restrictions with flap selected. When any flap is lowered a nose down pitching moment occurs. The speed limit using up to 4 notches/38 deg of flap is 300 KIAS/0.9M. If 300 KIAS is exceeded the flaps start to blow up and no structural damage occurs. If 0.9M is exceeded (a high level problem only) the aerodynamic loads on the elevator exceeds the output force of the elevator hydrobooster and 'jack stalling' occurs such that the elevator cannot be deflected trailing edge up and so the aircraft continues to pitch nose down; the recovery is to select flaps up, idle and airbrake out. NB that the elevator (and ailerons) and not fully hydraulically powered but are manual controls with powerful hydraulic boosting.

Pitch control is via the elevator and pitch trimming is by deflection of an electrically driven all moving tailplane. When flap is lowered and the aircraft pitches nose it is countered by an aft stick/elevator input. This is often done whilst manoeuvring and therefore no trim input is made. Even in this case, so long as the IMN is less than 0.9 you will always reach the stall before full back stick and so this trim change never limits pitch control authority at low altitude.

As has been said, lowering flap increases drag which is why, in general, 2 notches are used when manoeuvring with flap. 3 or 4 notches give you an increase in lift/instantaneous turn performance but the advantage is outweighed by the increase in drag.

It is quite usual to use flap for some looping manoeuvres in Hunter displays and there are, quite justifiably, different techniques used by different pilots.

[robert f jones]

This really is the most outstanding post and explains the problems faced by the pilot in very readable terms. It also seems to mirror the opinion of Winkle Brown regarding the accident.
Captain Hill is on the A320 aircraft flying mainly short haul, but as BA are short of pilots at the moment on the fleet, your comments re fatigue could be quite relevant.
I'm not sure if a previous post was an implied comment about Winkle Brown but in my aviation social circle, if he talks, people listen,

[Courtney Mil]

But, Robert F Jones, there is no evidence whatsoever for anyone to start writing or saying in public any personal evaluation about pilot error. winkle Brown and Leslie Hatcher should both no better than to make unprofessional, unsubstantiated accusations in public.

[cessnapete]

Capt Hill is on a 50% part time contract i.e. half a months flying.(40 hrs a month?)
Fatigue should not be a factor.

[Pittsextra]

But, Robert F Jones, there is no evidence whatsoever for anyone to start writing or saying in public any personal evaluation about pilot error. winkle Brown and Leslie Hatcher should both no better than to make unprofessional, unsubstantiated accusations in public.

Thats not true, there is a lot of evidence. Without wishing to repeat some others who hold a similar view (see post 327). That guy knows what he is seeing as will many others. Its a badly executed figure and flown as such was always going to loose height if he continued to pull, which ultimately he does all the way to the buffet and subsequent stall.

[Courtney Mil]

Pittsextra,

Even if you accept the judgement of others who either saw the display or the video, they have no way of knowing whether Andy met his gates (which stand regardless of entry altitude), whether there was a technical issue with the aircraft or numerous other things that I really do not need to rehearse here all over again.

You simply do not know if Andy "poorly performed" the manoeuvre or whether there were any other factors. Without that knowledge neither you nor anyone else can attribute the accident to pilot error.

Utter, inappropriate supposition at this stage.

[Wander00]

CM - absolutely correct, IMHO

[Mach Two]

I agree, Wander. Pittsextra is yet another armchair expert who is happy to make a completely unsupportable claim of pilot error with out any of the evidence that the investigation will reveal.

Pittsextra, instead of poorly performed by the pilot, have you considered the likes of control restriction, systems failure, pilot incapacitation (other than g-loc), disorientation or a dozen other possible factors that eye-witnesses and videos will not have shown? If not, you should before making inappropriate judgements about a man in a coma who is unable to respond to your accusations.

[Pittsextra]

CM - you are absolutely right we do not know what other factors may be involved and whilst data will be available to the relevant authorities I don't know his planned sequence etc. So I agree that and agree it isn't fair therefore to say the cause of the crash.

That said you can the 1/4 clover was poor however. We can see that with our eyes, OK we might not have in in super quality HD from Planes TV feed or whatever but you can see things as clearly as is needed.

Now i'd agree with you once again that it isn't known if Andy "poorly performed", but that isn't what I said. I said the figure was poorly flown, if there are other factors at play we do not know at this stage but the people looking at 1/10th's of seconds before impact are looking in the wrong place. The issue to this started way before then.

[Pittsextra]

Pittsextra is yet another armchair expert who is happy to make a completely unsupportable claim of pilot error with out any of the evidence that the investigation will reveal.

Pittsextra, instead of poorly performed by the pilot, have you considered the likes of control restriction, systems failure, pilot incapacitation (other than g-loc), disorientation or a dozen other possible factors that eye-witnesses and videos will not have shown? If not, you should before making inappropriate judgements about a man in a coma who is unable to respond to your accusations. You are unable to read my post on this. I said there was plenty of evidence available via the video and that (quoting myself) " Its a badly executed figure" - which it was. As I have added in the second post perhaps there were other factors which caused this to be so? Perhaps.

You are quite wrong however to suggest that questions around the way the machine was flown are not "inappropriate" given the history of display pilots and this type of crash, its claimed many before.

[Courtney Mil]

And, again, nobody can say why. And that is why nobody can start making wild accusations about pilot error.

One last thought. Has anyone here even seen Andy's display plan? Does anyone know what manoeuvre he was supposed to be performing. I know what we think it was, but who knows for sure and who knows what may have happened during the manoeuvre? More supposition.

Oh, and one more thing. Any unproven accusation about pilot error is always inappropriate. In this case based purely on the supposed expert opinion of someone else without all the facts available - That, by the way, is pretty much everybody at the moment.

[Pittsextra]

And, again, nobody can say why. And that is why nobody can start making wild accusations about pilot error.

CM - Given what we can see in the video whilst there maybe other factor it is a million miles away from WILD accusation. And again I didn't say it was pilot error, I said it was poorly flown (as you say perhaps there are other factors but the pilot is at least one of them). I respect your posts and views and so I'll leave it there.

[JFZ90]

Whatever the reasons, in laymans terms "insufficient altitude to complete a loop" has been seen so many times on so many types.

Is it time to re-consider whether this move (and similar ones) are inherently risky, perhaps a bit too risky?

What are the actual margins here? Even if you make your gate at the top - what margins exist for a technical issue or even just a control error in the 3rd quarter of the move?

It seems the speeds and energies at play here leave very very little room for error when performed close to the ground. Perhaps it is these moves and their inherent danger that need to be under the microscope, rather than the type or pilot experience.

The reds do it regularly of course without it seems difficulty, however I recall the thunderbirds had a terrible multi fatal accident from a loop. From the wiki it seems this was a technical issue (rear stab jammed) though I find it slightly odd all the video evidence was destroyed - a different time/culture perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Thunderbirds_Indian_Springs_Diamond_Crash

[dsc810]

@Courtney Mil

This is a copy of Chris Heames' hunter display routine taken from classicjets.co.uk which curiously is now seemingly non functional so the below has been lifted from google's cache of the page a week ago.
POSSIBLY it might be the same as the one of Andy's at Shoreham - or it might not.

Chris Heames Hunter display routine.
B Axis run in,
¼ Clover to A Axis,
Derry wing over,
Barrel Roll,
½ Cuban,
4 point roll,
Max rate turn,
Derry to A axis,
Wing over,
Slow roll,
Reverse ½ Cuban (lazy),
Canadian break to land.

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, DSC.

Quite a lot of stuff with connections to this are suddenly deleted.

[zetec2]

As an ex engineer with somewhat limited servicing experience (RAF) on various Mk's of hunter and seeing the remains being lifted on to transporters did it not look as though the rear section (tail unit) broke away at the transportation /engine removal/fit break point, if so always thought with the ring of bolts that it was a major strong point of the fuselage, not speculating on any cause just would like opinions, rgds, PH.

[Lonewolf_50]

Jazbag made a post on the R&N forums about Hunter manual reversion (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/566536-hawker-hunter-down-shoreham-17.html#post9094564). He is interested in others who experienced the same malfunction.
During one of my flights on the Hawker Hunter I had a manual reversion of the controls. One of the two switches in front console just tripped off. This was due to a momentary drop in hydraulic pressure ...

I was wondering how and when this could be linked up to this accident. If anyone else has had such an incident please do post your experience.

[BEagle]

The Hunter's hyd pump wasn't capable of maintaining pressure to the hydroboosters if other services were operated at the same time at low throttle angles. So idle thrust, airbrake in and landing gear down at the same time when rolling out downwind off the break would invariably cause manual reversion until the airbrake and landing gear had completed their operation.

VERY unusual for a 'momentary drop in hydraulic pressure' for any other reason, apart from inadequate maintenance, possibly?

[athonite]

JFZ has hit the nail on the head with his comments, such as the aircraft ran out of height, was the display to risky and what were the margins.

For those professional pilot's on here, we all know about factoring in margins for take off and landing performance (1.33/1.43). There are number distractions which can happen at critical moments during displays, such as bird strikes, loose items, sun in your eyes, malfunctions and of course an engine malfunction.

In the case of the later, whether a total or partial loss of power, would it no be reasonable to always have the energy to position the aircraft away from congested area? I'm really not sure what the display philosophy is here.

Regarding the other post regarding 'pilot error', this is an outdated term used by the media, the preferred term is human error, as no one factor in isolation causes an accident. As as we may find that the humans responsible for display authorisation may be one of the factors in this accident. I think a review in display authorisation was well overdue, the argument that there hasn't been a display accident involving civilians for 63 years is flawed statistically.

I can think of two well documented fatal air accidents in the UK, a B737-400 in the 80's and Viscount in the 90's where the FOI (CAA Flight Operations Inspector) were identified by the AAIB as one of the causal factors.

I think I'm right in thinking that the FOI, in the aftermath of the B737-400 accident was redeployed by the CAA to be a CAAFU Examiner and ironically then she became a CRMI Examiner!

[mary meagher]

Maintaining currency and experience relevant to the type..display pilots who are able to maintain both fitness and recency are going to become rare birds; even in the RAF, in order to save money, they say HMG has cut down on flying hours...can this be true?

[Captain Kirk]

CM - I think your indignation is misplaced. If AH was the only casualty I would agree with you entirely that any premature comment is insensitive and unnecessary. But he wasn't. And scrutiny will encompass all factors, to include, sadly, those aspects that we all hope are proven to be unfounded. But I'm afraid that your reluctance - indeed refusal - to contemplate human error is clouding your objective assessment of what evidence is already available, incomplete though it may be. Before I found myself saying that Capt Brown was making stupid and unsubstantiated comments, I might question what he had seen that I had missed...

I do, however, agree with you insomuch as I wish that we did not have to endure what definitely is wild speculation from those who are not qualified, in any shape or form, to comment - much less give them the oxygen of publicity and, with it, apparent authority. The public - and decision makers - will not be able tell the difference. But it was ever thus so there is no point in getting too bent out of shape. And hence my view that some authoritative statements need to be released early - earlier than normal perhaps.

I'm going to sign off now, but you are actually drawing more attention to the very issue that you are seeking to suppress. I genuinely hope that my own conclusions - which I have no intention of posting - are proved to be wrong, or at least incomplete. But I very much doubt it because they are based upon a clinical assessment of the indisputable facts to steadily rule out the least likely occurrences, allied to professional experience - which, incidentally, includes an insidious but total loss of thrust in a Hunter. And, sadly, I have had some practice at joining the dots in similar circumstances, so this is not 'wild speculation'.

Beam me up...

[APG63]

Athonite

Regarding the other post regarding 'pilot error', this is an outdated term used by the media, the preferred term is human error, as no one factor in isolation causes an accident.

Preferred by whom? Human error and Pilot error have different meanings. If the "human" involved was the pilot in question, pilot error is still a valid term. Human error has a broader meaning. I think you are probably talking specifically about UK GA training speak?

Regardless of the relevance of the term, does it really matter? I think we all understood the meaning here. Given that all your previous posts in the past five months (17 in all) have been solely on accident threads, I wonder what your motive is here.

[J1N]

Don't think this has been posted here before: contains a sensible and well written precis from someone well qualified to comment:

https://www.facebook.com/MissDemeanourOfficial?fref=nf

[deptrai]

Several here have suggested that all is ok in the UK because there hasn't been an accident involving "civilians" since Farnham 1952. If that implies disregarding air show accidents outside the UK, it does not strike me as a prudent approach to safety (and this is nitpicking, but one could also argue that the passengers who died in the 1977 Biggin Hill sightseeing helicopter-Tiger Moth crash were indeed "civilians", or "spectators"). "It can't happen here/to me" is a dangerous way of thinking, and usually there are lessons to be learned. Likewise, disregarding air show rehearsal accidents just because no spectators were present seems equally unwise (athonite I noticed you edited out the reference to the 1982 Thunderbirds accident :) - I thought it was interesting). I'm almost certain the CAA will consider the question of altitude minima for high-energy downward trajectory maneuvers, and for me, that is one of the most interesting questions in this context.

[athonite]

APG you miss the point.

In any accident, loss of life or assets, are never down to a a single person, hence pilot error does not exist, was Three Mile Island 'operator error', was Herald of Free Enterprise 'ship's captain error' and when a surgeon kills a patient is that 'surgeon error'. We need to consider the wider framework within errors occur, hence I suggest you read some of James Reason's books. Pilot error is a thing of the past.

I should add Human Error is not UK GA speak, read the ICAO directives!

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you for the link, J1N. Jonathon Whaley, the author, has given me his permission to post his article. Worth reading from an actual expert in this area:

Following ill informed comments and inappropriate speculation by self call experts on display flying and Hunters in particular, I’m breaking cover from media calls and emails to me.

What follows must be read in the context that on Saturday an aircraft crashed and not beyond that. I would have written almost the same words if the pilot had walked away from something other than a normal landing and no one had been injured, fatally or otherwise.

The AAIB will take what time is necessary to gather all relevant and perhaps what others might think irrelevant information, before even starting to piece together events. Only then will they go on to draw conclusions. Following that, they will undoubtedly make recommendations in the wake of their enquiry.

In the following I have used the expression “they will” but it is only my assumption of would seem logical, so take it as “they PROBABLY will”.
The AAIB will look at the operator’s Organisational Control Manual, (OCM) which sets out how an organisation operates its aircraft.

(At the end of this post, you’ll see the sections in the OCM for Miss Demeanour.)

They will look at the maintenance records, the After Flight and Before Flight (AF/BF) records which will show amongst other things, the pre-start fuel state, oxygen levels, Anti-G system nitrogen gas levels, etc.

The Flight Authorisation sheet will show the details of the planned flight, such as where the pilot intended to land after displaying. They will rebuild his planned flight as if they were flight planning it themselves. I would hope they would use an experience Hunter display pilot to do this, someone not connected to the organisation.

They will listen to the chain of radio communications from the departure airfield to starting his display. Just listening to what is said and how it was said will be factors, ranging from absolutely normal to there being intimations of other factors at play.

They will look at radar tracks along side those communications. Tracking around London from North Weald is flying in some of the most congested areas in UK General Aviation. Everyone else is also “going around” London but at less than half the Hunter’s speed.

They will analyse in great detail and probably develop a computer model of the display flight profile, from his positioning for the run in until moments after impact. This they can do using combinations of primary and secondary radar information together with photos and video from the general public. There is the possibility that any GPS in the aircraft will have recorded the flight profile. Nothing near a Flight Data Recorder but it could give track, speed and height information. They will look at everything they can which is external to the aircraft. Such factors such as visibility, birds or other aircraft that could have been in the pilot’s view. Anything that could have distracted the pilot or physically affected the aircraft. Photos and video of the jet exhaust, its heat haze etc can provide them with information. There will be things which even I haven’t thought of.

They will look at the pilot’s log book and any video they can get showing his previous displays in Hunters. They will look at displays he has flown in other aircraft. They will talk to people regarding personal details, medical history, occupational flying and to his Display Authorisation Examiner, etc. They will interview other Hunter display pilots to get an understanding as to what we do and the different ways in which we might go about displaying. They might even present those pilots with the information they have gathered and ask for second by second comments. They will obviously want to interview the pilot himself as soon as he is medically fit to be interviewed.

All this will take some months and can not be rushed. They may come up with an interim finding if there is something that can not wait for the full report.

The CAA also has to play its part by way of immediate and future actions. I can not fault what they have done so far.

As I write this is the status:

No flights by Hunter aircraft.

Vintage jet displays OVER LAND will be ..... “limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.”

They are actively reviewing air show safety.

See
www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx…

I was just typing “ you’d think they’d give a simple link!” when this link came through:

SN-2015/003: Restricting the Operation of Vintage Jet Aircraft at Flying Displays | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/SN2015003)

That is the LEAST they could do. They might easily have applied the ruling to all aircraft over certain horsepower and weight, warbird or otherwise. They might even have stopped all air shows pending their review.

The UK has the Gold Standard when it comes to do with everything related to air shows.

Every year, the CAA holds seminars for Display Pilots and seminars for Display Authorisation Examiners (DAEs) such as myself. It is compulsory for DAEs to attend at least two out of three seminars. Display organisers may also attend these seminars.

The Military Aviation Authority (MAA) likewise holds annual seminars, to which civilian display pilots are welcome to attend. Senior officers from the MAA also attend the CAA seminars.

Finally we have the British Air Display Association ( British Air Display Association (http://www.bada-uk.com)) who bring together civilian operators & pilots, military senior officers & pilots and display organisers, not only from the UK but Europe. BADA also arrange seminars.

Display Safety is the foundation stone of all these gatherings.

Apart from reviewing the previous year’s display activities and any incidents, safety procedures are reviewed both in terms of compliance and coverage. Whilst these events might have lectures on a wide range of air show aspects, they are also an interactive event where everyone can have an open discussion.

The British aviation community has been and continues to be world leaders when it comes to openness and examination of anything to do with aviation. Even the medical fraternity has taken lessons from this ability for introspection.

Comments about Hunters in general.

I’m often asked if they are difficult to fly. The answer is absolutely not. They are one of the most delightful and simple aircraft to fly. Yes, more demanding that a light aircraft because things happen more quickly. Their weight and speed makes inertia a big factor compared to a light aircraft. From a systems aspect, you could loose all hydraulic and electrical supply (they have two generators and batteries) and fly safely to land. In a Hunter in the UK, a suitable runway is no more than five or ten minutes away. I would go so far as to say that the skill level required to fly a Hunter is not as great as say flying a Spitfire. In a Spitfire or other big piston warbird, a pilot must have a definite feel for aircraft, an affinity for flying. In fact the further you go back in warbird aircraft age, the more difficult they become. The Hunter is at the peak of simplicity for all military jets of any type before moving on in time to later military aircraft.

With regards to the Hunter’s age, Hunter aircraft are still be operated by civilian contractors providing the military with services for which the military do not want to tie up their own more costly assets. Why, because they are simple and safe to operate. About the only downside is an axial flow engine which lacks the fuel economy of a by-pass jet engine.

Before the Hunters were allowed in to civilian hands, the type’s service record was examined in detail by the CAA, to assess its reliability. It was and I believe still stands as the UK’s largest exported military aircraft type and was revered by all countries and pilots who flew them.

It’s Avon engine is regarded as one of the most robust engines ever built by Rolls Royce. It is still used by power stations for auxiliary power generation. The London Underground also used them, I think again as an auxiliary power source or something to do with ventilation. Why? because they ran for hour upon hour with faultless reliability. While I was flying in the Fleet Air Arm, we had a Rolls Royce engineer talk to us about the Phantom’s engine. He had also worked on Avons. We still flew Hunters and I asked him how long could the engine run without oil pressure. I think his reply was something on the lines “we gave up try to find out after eight hours”.

Hunters, along with all ex military jets, indeed all ex military aircraft, are maintained and inspected beyond that called for by normal aircraft. That is NOT because they need it. It is because those who have the responsibility for the rules of their operation but do not understand the aircraft in fine detail, will see the buck stopping with them.

There is a public outcry for “something to be done”. It is natural. The question is where is the line drawn?

Accidents, at the most banal, it is not golf balls that kill people, it is the golfers who hit the ball. Why else do most Golf Clubs insist that their members have indemnity insurance? It must happen enough times that this is deemed necessary. It’s not cars and lorries that kill it’s the people driving. I am NOT saying pilot error, I’m saying that wherever there is an inanimate object under the control or lack of control by a human, accidents happen. Ban flying, driving and golf, problem solved.

There will be lessons learnt and things will change. Whether there is an over reaction we will have to wait and see.

You will have been disappointed if you were expecting comments or views on what happened on Saturday. It is human nature to speculate but such speculation should not be made public where others might take it as gospel. It doesn’t help if that person’s speculation was based on the fact that they looked in their log book and saw they once flew a Hunter forty years ago.
Again, as in my previous post, my heart goes out to all the families and friends of those innocent people who were traumatised, injured or died as a result of the crash.

Jonathon.

[OafOrfUxAche]

[QUOTE]Pilot error is a thing of the past[QUOTE]


Bull****.


[QUOTE]when a surgeon kills a patient is that 'surgeon error'[QUOTE]


Could be.


It is right and proper that all the factors are considered when assessing why something has gone wrong, including organisational failings, culture, poor equipment etc etc. But in those (few) cases where a properly trained individual does simply make a mistake, it is also right and proper that this sole cause is laid bare.


Please note I am in no way commenting on the cause of Saturday's tragic events. I prefer to leave the investigation to experts. Who appear to be in short supply on this forum...

[athonite]

Courteny Mil

Is it possible based on your 'expert evidence' you could disclose your full name and address on pprune, so we can pass your details onto the coroner, as you are clearly the right person to be an expert witness (?) for the defendants! Can your 'expert witness' speak for himself as he is clearly an expert on the Hunter?

[Courtney Mil]

Athonite,

I'm slightly confused by your post.

Courteny Mil

Is it possible based on your 'expert evidence' you could disclose your full name and address on pprune, so we can pass your details onto the coroner, as you are clearly the right person to be an expert witness (?) for the defendants! Can your 'expert witness' speak for himself as he is clearly an expert on the Hunter?

I assume this is a personal attack of some kind, but I'm unclear what point you're making. No, you can't have my personal details although I am not hard to find on the Internet.

If you're commenting about Jonathon Whaley's blog article I have posted above, he is there speaking for himself. If you want to find his blog for yourself, look on Face-Book. He is a well known Hunter pilot and runs the Miss Demeanour page.

As someone that professes there is no such thing a pilot error, I'm surprised to read your remark about "defendants" in an AAIB inquiry.

[Stitchbitch]

athonite, perhaps this might be enlightening? CM isn't JW! :E

flapjack?s biography | Heritage Aviation (http://www.heritageaviation.com/index.php/info/the-pilot/)

[Mach Two]

I wondered how long it would take for this forum to be dragged down to the personal abuse level by those that only turn up here when there's been a crash. Well done, athenite. Just what the debate needed.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, I get it, Stitchbitch. Thank you. :ok:

Athenite,

I am Paul Courtnage (Google it). I was a pilot in the RAF.

Jonathon Whaley is a Hunter Pilot. He was a pilot in the FAA.

We are different people and your clever post is completely wrong and unnecessary.

[NutLoose]

Some good news if there is such a thing in this sad affair

Yesterday, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which regulates UK airspace and its users, imposed, with immediate effect, certain restrictions on displays by vintage jet aircraft at all airshows over land. High-energy aerobatics are, for the time being, no longer permitted.

Operations Director and Chief Pilot of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust, Martin Withers, has spoken to his contacts at the CAA, and has released this statement:

“I am pleased to report that I have received assurances from our contacts at the CAA that XH558's 2015 display routine is not classified as aerobatic, and so consequently, we are hoping to continue to fly on through XH558's last season with minimal changes to our display.”

[Mach Two]

That is at least some good news Nutloose. Thanks for telling us.

Athenite, now that you demanded Courtney's details and questioned JW's, how about you tell us who you are. I see you claim both mil and civ time.

Having had over twenty five years in both military and civil aviation mainley in an intructional/training/recruitment role, I would like to make the following comments:


I also note that you have a history of simply disappearing from threads once you've made ill-considered comments that are shown to be incorrect. Is that the case here or are you going to acknowledge your mistake?

[Wingswinger]

CM,

I was trying to quote your comment about me at #344 but for some reason it won't work.

I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert. I can hardly do that since it's some 33 years since I last flew a Hunter and I didn't display them. Display pilots may well use flap all the way round a loop quite safely but it's not something I recall ever doing in normal aerobatics. In ACM, IIRC, we used to make a point of having it all retracted by 300 kts. What I do recall quite clearly is how it felt the day I left some flap down during a low-level combat and got to 480 kts or so before realising and raising it. It was quite a lesson which I never forgot. So I don't think it passed me by.

Regarding G-LOC: It can happen at surprisingly low G levels and I believe the onset can be delayed to a some time after the manoeuvre which provoked it. I think this is where fitness on the day can be a factor. I have personal experience of this which I again remember clearly when, flying a Harrier GR3, I blacked out at only 3G or so and recovered with the nose well below the horizon and 120 degrees of bank. We used to burn the candle at both ends in those days and I think that was at the root of it. A mate had a similar experience which the SMO ascribed to his habit of skipping breakfast.

[Tashengurt]

While the actions of those filming around the crash site may seem questionable it seems there may have been some extraordinary actions taking place at the same time if, as reported, the pilot was pulled from the burning aircraft. Slightly surprised we haven't heard more of this.

[ORAC]

Looking at the videos and the aircraft recovery it would appear the aircraft operated into its 3 main sections during the first seconds of impact; the tail, main fuselage and wing tanks and the nose section. The nose section being recovered from the far side of the trees towards the airfield. I would speculate that his survival was substantially aided by his slower deceleration through the vegetation and being thrown away from the conflagration caused by the wing and fuselage tank explosions on the road itself.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03417/Shoreham_crane_1_3417045b.jpg

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/485090964-part-of-the-damaged-remains-of-a-hawker-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXhyIHnPP557MqjfYqOhBcoE1aw%2B%2BkdE6WL Xz9h5KUHlU3aBE6LoyUVGmjn073u%2Bo2A%3D%3D

[BEagle]

This is an interesting article:

Shoreham Airshow disaster: Hawker Hunter's final take-off 'unusual' expert says (From The Argus) (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13623792.Shoreham_Airshow_disaster__Hawker_Hunter_s_final_ta ke_off__unusual__expert_says/?ref=ar)

The video is here:

?v=v36gUb2NDhI&feature=player_embedded

It might be completely irrelevant, but worthy of investigation?

[Courtney Mil]

Wingswinger,

Thank you for responding. Regarding use of flaps in the Hunter, I agree with the point you made at your last post. BEagle has commented on this quite succinctly - he has an uncanny memory of technical and handling information of pretty much everything he's flown; lots of good stuff in his head about Hunter and Gnat. He deals specifically with formation aeros here:

If I recall correctly, use of 23 flap in ACM caused an initial nose-down trim change, which in the environment of dynamic ACM was easily overcome by a firm elevator movement. The effect of 23 flap gave an increased turn rate, which was advantageous in getting to a sight-on solution, but the increased drag meant that it was only a temporary advantage?

Whereas flying certain manoeuvres with 23 flap was entirely normal for formation aerobatic teams.

As in...

http://www.fradu-hunters.co.uk/fraduhnt/images/fprm306.jpg
FRADU

He also remarked on the use of flap in solo aeros here:

Use of 23° flap in the Hunter whilst manoeuvring was quite common when I was taught ACM at Brawdy - just don't leave any flap down above M0.9 or you won't recover. Not relevant here though...

I think we used 320 KIAS and 23° flap for low speed loops - apart from my chum Ozzie who misheard the brief and tried 230 KIAS....once.



Here's a Sweedish Air Force Hunter (photo by Alan Kenny) taken at the Jersey Air Show in 2013 - posted as a link as the image is too big for PPRuNe: http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/central/images/gallery/7474.jpg which just about shows the use of a notch or two in a solo display. My point being that use of flap in aeros has been standard practice in some cases for a long time.

G-loc: you are absolutely right about both delayed onset and physiological factors affecting g tolerance, but I would not wish to comment on the latter here as that could mean too much fuel for the blame-the-pilot brigade (hopefully not PPRuNe posters, but the lurkers that read this - I think we hit around 1,000 people viewing for the past few days!).

From my wonderful few days doing the USAF's g training and riding their centrifuge I recall a couple of relevant points. Most people's resting g tolerance seems to be around 4 g (with considerable variation) and onset of symptoms above or around that are generally limited to peripheral dimming followed by greying. At higher g levels (8 plus for most) without effective straining the effects are likely to be seven seconds of consciousness (due to oxygen stored in the brain) followed by rapid blackout. There is, of course, an in-between. The rapid, insidious onset is not normally a factor in aeros - but as you stated and demonstrated by personal experience, there are exceptions. I would add that variations with age do not appear to be particularly significant, although I don't recall the age band their research covered.

[Robert Marks]

I've been watching the videos that surfaced after the crash with great interest, and my opinion poor decision making is the main factor of this accident, for reasons I will describe below.

The following is worth noting about the Reverse ½ Cuban 8 maneuver:
The Reverse ½ Cuban 8 maneuver is used as an end turn-around maneuver, and may be offset well to the left or right for this purpose.

** This is important, because the same is visible in the video referenced below.

To begin with, the airplane is seen in this video (https://youtu.be/pvHplYmh2f8) to approach A27 from the North, doing a low level left hand turn, which it finished on an approximate South-Eastern heading, roughly above the Cuckoo's Corner (Coombes Rd).
At that point from what is visible in the video, he was flying roughly around 100 feet AGL, at which altitude, he began a Reverse ½ Cuban 8, which when he started he was flying roughly parallel to A27 as seen in this video (https://youtu.be/JVt36X41mls).

** This is important because starting that evolution parallel to the highway, also implies the possibility of it ending parallel to the highway (or directly above it), which it did.

Low level flying coupled with poor situational awareness amount to a poorly judged evolution with equivalent results, for reasons described below:

For what it's worth, I think any display pilots of highly maneuverable planes (such as Eurofighter, Rafale etc) would be reluctant if asked to start a Reverse ½ Cuban 8 at that altitude. Simply because it's a dangerous proposition, regardless of the airplane you are flying. Even if done right, it implies you would also finish the maneuver very close to ground level. Which is not a way to do things generally, let alone at an airshow, and much less in a vintage aircraft, equipped with a turbojet engine which even under perfectly functioning conditions, is likely to have a longer spool up time (like the L-39 does) and you will waste precious seconds close to ground level waiting for that power to be delivered to an otherwise not very energy-efficient air frame.

It is then wise, to allocate an altitude buffer for maneuvers such as Loops, Split S, or Reverse ½ Cuban 8.

Whether there was an unusual takeoff in a lower power setting than usual, or the usage of flaps influenced the elevator authority can be debated until the technical investigation is finalized. If the airplane didn't deliver enough power upon taking off, and the pilot was aware of the limitation, that means he had even less reasons to attempt that maneuver in the first place.

I believe if the pilot would have decided to go for a ½ Cuban 8, instead of Reverse ½ Cuban 8, the evolution would have ended at a relatively safe altitude and we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

[Voicemail]

This is an interesting article:

Shoreham Airshow disaster: Hawker Hunter's final take-off 'unusual' expert says (From The Argus) (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13623792.Shoreham_Airshow_disaster__Hawker_Hunter_s_final_ta ke_off__unusual__expert_says/?ref=ar)

The video is here:

?v=v36gUb2NDhI&feature=player_embedded

It might be completely irrelevant, but worthy of investigation?

Anyone flown a Hunter from Weald? Is this an "oddly flat" departure or just hot day and fuel in the underwings?

[BEagle]

Mr Hatcher stated: 'Every display pilot knows the minimum display height is 500ft -that's the height he should have come in at and didn't. So he broke the rules there.’

As one who has only flown aeros for personal enjoyment at 'HASELL height' and above*, rather than in displays, I'm not qualified to comment on Mr. Hatcher's comments regarding minimum height criteria. But surely they form part of the pilot's DA? Does a DA include 'Rule 5' exemption?

PS - Thanks for your kind comments, Courtney Mil. Usual fee....;)??


*Although I did win the Bulldog aeros pot on my CFS course - unfortunately the other chap, who probably should have won, overstressed during his manoeuvre, so that was that. But the rest of the course must have been pretty cr@p as I was distinctly 'average'!

[Above The Clouds]

BEagle
It might be completely irrelevant, but worthy of investigation?


Does anyone know when this particular T7 airframe was released from HMS ?

[nipva]

Despite many hundreds of hours on Hunters I cannot recall if the T7's anti-g supply is the same as the single-seaters i.e. an accumulator or if it is supplied with bleed air. I do recall that it was quite disconcerting on a range sortie to suddenly run out of anti-g usually on pulling off the target.

My apologies if this has already been covered

[AtomKraft]

WV372 was built as an F.4 in 1955.
Converted into a T.7 in 1959
Flew as a civilian a/c in 1998.

[Courtney Mil]

Despite many hundreds of hours on Hunters I cannot recall if the T7's anti-g supply is the same as the single-seaters i.e. an accumulator or if it is supplied with bleed air. I do recall that it was quite disconcerting on a range sortie to suddenly run out of anti-g usually on pulling off the target.

My apologies if this has already been covered

It has been. Post320. Here you go.

The Hunter 7 has a gaseous anti-g system; if that fails unexpectedly you might well grey out. But it's a pretty reliable system and the +g available in the accident manoeuvre would seem to have been less than would cause the pilot to lose consciousness if the anti-g system failed.

[bigglesbrother]

Attached are links to videos showing 22 RAF Hawker Hunter aircraft looping in close formation at world famous airshows.

So why in 2015 is a single Hunter unable to loop successfully and safely at an airshow?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_loop

Black Arrows - CXI (F) Squadron (http://www.111sqn.com/black-arrows.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwn9DSG6Hvo

[Above The Clouds]

bigglesbrother
So why in 2015 is a single Hunter unable to loop successfully and safely at an airshow?


I do believe that is precisely what the Uk AAIB are trying to determine. :rolleyes:

[Courtney Mil]

Well said, ATC. And it wasn't a loop.

[ZeBedie]

There's another one at it now on the Telegraph, saying the takeoff looked unusual because he used a lot of runway

But to be fair, it did appear to have a long ground roll - in excess of 30 seconds, I think. An improvised reduced power T/O?

[Courtney Mil]

Hardly standard practice. I wonder how anyone would calculate take off data at an intermediate power setting. Anyone here have a Hunter ODM handy?

[oggers]

Athonite:

I suggest you read some of James Reason's books. Pilot error is a thing of the past.

Well if you read it in a book it can't possibly be the claptrap that I think it is.

[ZeBedie]

North Weald 02 is only 6200'. I think there was no headwind component, a hot day.

[Above The Clouds]

ZeBedie
North Weald 02 is only 6200'. I think there was no headwind component, a hot day.


TOD MAUW would have been in the region of 4000ft.

[45-25-25]

From my Pilot's Notes (last amended in 1972!) with Zero Wind and +15 the Ground Run with 2 x 100 gallon drop tanks is given as 950 yards and +30 it is given as 1120 yards. There are no figures for a reduced power Take-off.

[Above The Clouds]

Since starting the thread I have avoided inputs of a speculative nature to a possible cause for this tragic event and I really don't want to now, other than put some thoughts out there for others with more experience working on and flying the Hunter.

For the engineers out there if I say "Gundip" system and this particular airframes form 700 would you understand where I am coming from and what system was affected, the required "mod" residual wiring, due to spurious inputs into a particular system.

When WV372 was in HMS she was converted to a T7 then had periods of long term storage before coming in to civilian operation, did the complete "mod" get done before leaving HMS.

Now a video showing what seems to be an extended take-off run from North Weald departing for Shoreham, and that is all it shows, but refer to the "mod" again.

Discussions and statements of possibility not making the entry altitude/height for manoeuvre recovery and the unusual shape of the manoeuvre during both vertical phases, but refer to the "mod" again.

Also bear in mind the picture I posted and what I said earlier in post 38 and taking the above points into the equation.

No speculation just comments to provoke a thought process for those who understand the aircraft in depth.

[bigglesbrother]

A reply to Courtney Mil post #432

You said in your post #432 ...... "And it wasn't a loop".

Well, from the many video links on pprune we can see that the T7 Hunter entered from a level left turn, started fast very low down, went up as if to loop, slowed at the top as is usual .... and then descended initially – but sadly unsuccessfully - as if to complete a loop.

So what was the intended vertical manoeuvre in your words please?

[Fortissimo]

Please allow me to help CM out here.

A loop is conducted entirely wings level - from initial pull-up, through the vertical, the inverted and the pull-out, which means you start and finish on the same heading (or as close to it as most of us can manage). It is the most basic of aerobatic manoeuvres, which is why it is normally the first aerobatic taught to students.

A manoeuvre where you pull to the vertical, roll through 90 degrees and then complete a 3/4 loop to exit at 90 degrees from entry is called a quarter clover. It is very useful for positioning during displays.

It appears that the intended manoeuvre on this occasion was a quarter clover, or a modified version of same as the heading change was less than 90 degrees. However, only one person knows exactly what the intended manoeuvre was, and he is currently unable to tell us because he is still in an induced coma.

I hope this helps your understanding.

[Courtney Mil]

Quarter clover. The roll on the way up. See post 378, thought to be his sequence does not include a loop.

Edit to add: Thanks, Fortissimo. Beat me to it.

[Penny Washers]

Voicemail #416 and BEagle #403:

The video of the takeoff at North Weald shows quite a brisk cross wind (see the paper bags blowing past) which could even be tending to a quartering tailwind.

No wonder the takeoff is flat.

[Odanrot]

First post so gentle please. Fast jet retired, flown the Hunter and done some display flying.

My problem is that Im on holiday in Germany, arrived day of crash, and can't get my IPad to play videos. Read all the experts and frankly confused. What did he do? Was it a quarter clover or did he just do a loop to the "left". One would probably be deliberate the other could signify he had a problem. Either way if He missed gate ht or speed he was heading to bust base ht - which he obviously did. I'm struggling with how such an experienced pilot could miss such an important gate.

However, the pilot of the 88 Abingdon F4 loop into the ground was one of mine at Valley and never worried me. Don't know anybody who hasn't bust base ht when it's been 5000 ft by thinking "never mind that was nearly gate ht" but not when doing LL aeros, its an automatic roll off the top and foxtrot Oscar.

Gratefull for any descriptions.

[BEagle]

Above The Clouds, after the loss of 216's T7 XL597, the RAF deleted all gundip components from Hunter T7 aircraft.

That was 1980; WV372 served with the RAF until being transferred to the RN in 1984. It subsequently flew with FRADU until 1993, so it certainly should have had all gundip components removed.

[Pittsextra]

Please allow me to help CM out here.

A loop is conducted entirely wings level - from initial pull-up, through the vertical, the inverted and the pull-out, which means you start and finish on the same heading (or as close to it as most of us can manage). It is the most basic of aerobatic manoeuvres, which is why it is normally the first aerobatic taught to students.

A manoeuvre where you pull to the vertical, roll through 90 degrees and then complete a 3/4 loop to exit at 90 degrees from entry is called a quarter clover. It is very useful for positioning during displays.

It appears that the intended manoeuvre on this occasion was a quarter clover, or a modified version of same as the heading change was less than 90 degrees. However, only one person knows exactly what the intended manoeuvre was, and he is currently unable to tell us because he is still in an induced coma.

I hope this helps your understanding. Regardless of this accident can you also explain the potential errors and their consequences in this type of manoeuvre? Just for the clarity of those reading the board.

Don't know anybody who hasn't bust base ht when it's been 5000 ft by thinking "never mind that was nearly gate ht" but not when doing LL aeros, its an automatic roll off the top and foxtrot Oscar.

You might think that.... but history proves that not to be the case. Hawk Trainer accident with company test pilot is at least one display accident that fits the same story.

[Courtney Mil]

Odanrot,

Welcome. A brief précis of one of the videos, caveated that this is what it looked like from that particular angle. We do not know how level the camera was held so I can't be sure of angles.

Andy was seen to run in at low level and pulled up into what concensus here believes to have been a quarter clover. It did not look like he achieved the true vertical, but not by much. He rolls through probably slightly less than 90 degrees and continues to pull over the top. No one here can judge if he made the gate height or not, so I wouldn't assume that.

The pull appears to slacken slightly on the way down and the last quarter it looks like he's pulling hard, possibly very hard. Just before impact on the A27 the aircraft is about ten degrees nose up but still descending. There is a hint of what may be wing rock shortly before impact.

On impact there is a large fireball and it looks like the cockpit section detaches from the fuselage and remains slightly ahead of the majority of the fire. I could not see an ejection gun so a complete ejection sequence is also unlikely.

Any corrections welcome.

There is no evidence to indicate that he did not meet his parameters at the top and it looked like there was hot air coming from the jet pipe in the final stages, so the engine was doing something - quite what, I could not say, but possibly working.

Andy was recovered from the scene very badly injured and is currently alive, but in a medically-induced coma. There has been very little news since about his condition. Wreckage is still being recovered from the scene and there were a number of casualties and fatalities among people in cars, one or more motorcyclists and people on foot or sitting (I think) in the area.

There has been a lot of speculation about the causes and the safety of a display in that area. Until evidence other than photographs, videos and witness becomes available further comment on my behalf would not be appropriate.

Hope that kind of brings you up to speed. I assume you will have seen the news paper articles and some of the (in my opinion) slanderous statements that have appeared in the media by so called experts.

[deltahotel]

ATC, Beagle. What's gundip?

[Courtney Mil]

Regardless of this accident can you also explain the potential errors and their consequences in this type of manoeuvre? Just for the clarity of those reading the board.

Probably not if it's likely to feed further speculation.

[RetiredF4]

My first assesment concerning the maneuver flown was, that it was a 1/4 of a clover leaf. After looking at the published graphs with the probable flightpath on this thread and the ongoing discusssion I offer another version for discussion. I asked myself, what kind of maneuver would I do at that point, and came up with neither a loop nor a 1/4 Clover leaf, I would have done just a low pass along the line. But the task might have been not to cross the A27 at that low altitude, requiring a pullup followed by a descent and some small heading change. I would have done a Barrel Roll type maneuver there, but never a 1/4 Clover Leaf.

I watched some videos from former displays of A.H. in the hunter and Jet Provost on youtube, all available on a google search, and observed most repositionings were performed by some Barrel Roll type maneuvers. I found none pure Clover leaf type maneuver, but that might also be due to the fact, that the top of such maneuver is the point farthest away from the action and thus not recorded or edited out of the clip.

In the assumed flightpath the Jet comes in low and fast, turns somewhat to the right and pulls up, like the initial part of a Barrel Roll to the left. At that point prior pullup the airfield might be hidden behind the tree line. For a Barrel Roll type positioning the turn to the pullup point was too late, which the pilot might have recognized during the pullup. In order to reduce the forward travel he took the maneuver higher and further off to the left and ended slow on top, way off the final course and unprepared for the following descent. The reorientation to the intended flightpath while still inverted lead to an unplanned and unsafe increase in descent rate.

But sure it is pure speculation from my side. I have never flown the Hawk, all my flight time is in Phantoms.

[Above The Clouds]

deltahotel
ATC, Beagle. What's gundip?


A system fitted to prevent engine surging when guns where in use, I will leave the technical points out so as not to start a flurry of wild speculation.

[Pittsextra]

Probably not if it's likely to feed further speculation.

I'm not too sure of your issue. You are happy to discuss various elements that relate to the Hunter but are unhappy to discuss elements that relate to that manoeuvre.

Sure let the AAIB make a report and let time pass while we wait but I am at a loss as to why you avoid what is a pretty fundamental point.

[Above The Clouds]

Pittsextra
I'm not too sure of your issue. You are happy to discuss various elements that relate to the Hunter but are unhappy to discuss elements that relate to that manoeuvre.

Regardless of this accident can you also explain the potential errors and their consequences in this type of manoeuvre? Just for the clarity of those reading the board.


As no one is certain what the intended manoeuvre actually was, how can you expect someone to explain the potential errors ?

[Courtney Mil]

I don't have an issue, Pittsextra, but I am not about to compile a list of possible errors and their consequences that the uninformed or speculative out there might use as a checklist to draw inappropriate conclusions from.

If you are capable of describing the detail and dangers of a barrel roll in the 1999 Hawk Crash thread, I'm sure you could compile the list if you so wish.

[BEagle]

ΔH, Avon-powered Hunters were prone to engine surge when the guns were fired, due to ingestion of muzzle gases. The only solution was to 'dip' the fuel supplied to the engine whilst the guns were firing, which briefly reduced the fuel supply during the half second or so during which the trigger was pressed.

Probably only a problem if all 4 guns on the SS Hunters were fired together, but fitted to all Avon-powered Hunters nonetheless.

Hunters whose guns were no longer used clearly didn't need the system and many had it disconnected under mod 1321. But following the loss of XL597, there was concern that the rotting old wiring might still be capable of interfering with the engine fuel supply, so the design authority required that all components and wiring associated with gundip were to be removed.

Courtney Mil will probably remember the rusty old knobs and tits on the F-4 centre pedestal left over from mud-moving days, which we air defenders never used. Apart from one chap, that is, who moved something and lost his tanks, or similar. From then on, the edict was "Don't touch anything!" on the centre pedestal, apart from the centre station selector for the gun.

Leaving old wiring in jets is never a good idea!

[Pittsextra]

Well if someone else posts it saves the handbagging I got when I first posted!! That aside it might lead to a more obvious point than the GLOC, position of flaps, thrust and other less obvious chatter seen so far.. Above the clouds. I'm sorry of course it was a 1/4 clover let's not be silly

[KenV]

Above the clouds. I'm sorry of course it was a 1/4 clover let's not be silly "Of course it was"? You sound awfully certain. Read post #431.

On a related note, LOTS of people were equally certain as you (and repeatedly stated) that the Thunderbirds F-16 ejection and crash at Mountain Home in 2004 was due to missing an altitude gate while performing a loop. And that is completely wrong.

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

[ORAC]

Courtney Mil will probably remember the rusty old knobs and tits on the F-4 centre pedestal left over from mud-moving days, which we air defenders never used. Apart from one chap, that is, who moved something and lost his tanks, or similar. Centreline tank - out of LU in Delta fit on a CAP. Bored nav was explaining how they made the switches to drop instant sunshine when he was on muds. Talked pilot through sequence, pilot pulled trigger - and tank dropped to high pitched scream from front seat. I was assured there was some semi-serious discussion of declaring an emergency and clearing all the stores before they fessed up....

I was the FA and told Ops XX was RTB Charlie fit - "no, he's Delta", said they. 'not any more", said I.....

IIRC they checked they rest of the fleet - they were in the only jet where the wires hadn't been cut IAW a mod......

[Mach Two]

Well if someone else posts it saves the handbagging I got when I first posted!! That aside it might lead to a more obvious point than the GLOC, position of flaps, thrust and other less obvious chatter seen so far.

Handbagging? Really? Your first post here was to make a pretty outrageous claim about the pilot's execution of an aerobatic manoeuvre, based on the claim of an old bloke that should know better.


Its a badly executed figure and flown as such was always going to loose height if he continued to pull, which ultimately he does all the way to the buffet and subsequent stall.

If it helps, I'll explain what is wrong with that statement.

Badly executed figure. Please offer your aeros background on which you base that claim and it what way it was badly executed.

Was always going to lose height. Sorry, a statement based on what?

Which he does all the way to the buffet. How do you deduce he was in the buffet?

And subsequent stall. Again, show us how you know for a fact that he was in a stall.

You use those unproven assumptions to make a statement linked to Brown's assertion that it was the pilot's fault and you are then surprised that someone here picks you up on it? That wasn't a handbagging, it was you being, quite correctly, shown that your statement was unacceptable, unfounded and unwelcome.

As a reminder this is

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.

Lots of others are welcomed here and we have many non-military regulars who contribute a lot to the forum. But people that come in here and spout stuff like that should expect to hear about it.

At the very least, don't whine about it when someone challenges your accusations against a former, highly professional, former military pilot.

[Chesty Morgan]

Not sure if it's been posted yet but new video clip showing a "flameout".

Shoreham air show video shows Hawker Hunter jet before A27 crash | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3211396/Video-shows-Shoreham-air-disaster-jet-appear-struggle-off.html)

I'm not convinced.

[Mach the Knife]

There is more than one way to fly a 1/4 clover. Some advocate a wings level pitch to about 60 nose up and then a roll to the 90 axis ( a point on the wing tip) before stopping the roll and completing the manoeuvre as a loop. This is the way I teach new aerobatics pilots to fly this manoeuvre as it helps with definately achieving the gate height and speed. A more elegant way is to start rolling at the pitch up point to achieve 90 off the original heading at the gate height and speed. It looks smoother but is harder to fly and much easier to arrive at the inverted position low and or fast, ie below gate; if this happens an escape manoeuvre needs to be flown. If not the pull through will result in a base height bust or impact with the ground unless you have an incredible amount of flex in the display.

[Pittsextra]

CM - sorry but the majority of my posts are not accident related - given the number of accidents lately I think you'll find I have hardly commented at all. The big beef accident wise I had related to the 225 in the NS because I had a close mate and his family affected and that turned into a real shtshow. BTW ask the guy PM'ing you what his view is on The Glasgow helicopter crash or read his own view then tell me why my motives are any different to his.


Not that any of this really matters the question re: this accident was because it seems odd when you can discuss everything including the last take off and the jets available power but you can't mention the way that 1/4 clover was flown. (And for the obvious contradiction that merely shows how badly it was flown) - what is great pity is when the view that doesn't agree with the masses then becomes trolling.. Let's wait until the AAIB report although in the circumstances it's all more than hollow.

And thank you Mach the knife re the explanation of what happens if it isn't done properly....

[Irish Steve]

No military experience, and no aeros worth talking about, but experience in the Shoreham area a long time ago, where the (very experienced, Ex RAF) CFI and CAA examiner spent some time briefing me in significant detail about the local issues on the 20 approach that could cause "brown trouser" moments in certain winds, and he was right to do so, over the following 6 months of twin training, I had several moments where his briefing meant I knew instantly what was happening, rather than having to try and work it out at a critical stage of the approach.

There is 700 Ft High ground to the north of Shoreham, and the valley of the River Adur cuts through it very close to the final approach segment of Runway 20. The result is that there can be very unpredictable wind changes in terms of both direction and speed during the base leg and final approach to 20, especially if you are flying a faster aircraft than others in the circuit, so have to position outside them in order to pass, so you're closer to the high ground than would be normal for the circuit.

In South West winds, it was common for a significant head wind component to suddenly and instantly become a strong cross wind in the middle of the turn from base to final, so if you were a bit slow, the consequences could be significant! It would have been rare to be using 20 in easterly winds, but the warning was that the high ground could and did cause down draughts and direct tail winds.

The flight on Saturday was descending through the area that is most noted for this, and with the wind being Easterly, there was the potential for both down draught and tailwind during the descent and exit from the loop, or clover, or whatever you want to call it, and in my albeit limited book, a downdraught and tail wind at that stage of the manoeuvre would not have been helpful, given all the other restrictions that are in place, like the TMA base.

I know what the effects of these winds were on a light twin, but I have no way of knowing how dramatic they might have been on an aircraft like the Hunter. Am I barking up the wrong tree? If my experience 20 odd years ago was anything to go by, I'm not, but I am open to any corrections or updates from those who do have specific experience of the type.

I'm asking this here, as I've tried discussing it in the R & N thread, and it's impossible to work in that thread any more as so many posts are being removed en masse, so the thread continuity is completely broken, my computer here keeps losing track of where it is in the thread.

[Courtney Mil]

Courtney Mil will probably remember the rusty old knobs and tits on the F-4 centre pedestal left over from mud-moving days, which we air defenders never used.

Ah, yes. Bored air defenders wanting to play nuclear bomber crews. I'll select Special Weapon on the centre pedestal, you make the consent switch in the back. Coming up to the target and pickle. Thump. What was that? I don't know, but the TK light's gone out.

If you tell a jet wired to be a nuclear bomber and tell it to drop the bomb, it will do the best it can throw away your centreline tank.

If you don't know what it is, don't :mad: with it.

[GlobalNav]

I'm not sure why we are spending so much time nit-picking the error of the F-16 pilot as it concerns the Shoreham accident.

Nevertheless, I think once the F-16 pilot had computed the gate height (or shall I say mis-computed it), he apparently flew the maneuver in accordance with the mis-computed value with the unfortunate, but non-fatal result.

I suppose it is worth discriminating between neglecting or over-looking or failing to comply with a gate height with failing to use the correct airfield elevation when computing the value. The lesson learned would be different.

For the Shoreham accident, we have absolutely no way to know - at this time - what the pilot intended, what error he might have made nor why. So, perhaps, nit-picking of the F-16 pilot's error has little value here.

As God saved the life of the F-16 pilot, may He also be merciful to the Hawker pilot. (or shall we debate that too?)

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, I saw the "flameout" article in the Mail too. Did it not occur to them that it doesn't even look like a flame and that it is clearly lens flare or a bug on the lens that doesn't appear in any other pictures or vids? Possibly the Mail has sunk to new depths.

I did leave a comment, but it do no good. Once the experts believe in something, they will not let go.

On a brighter note, their article about Hatcher's I'll-chosen words has received nothing short of a slamming from readers. Perhaps there is intelligent life out there after all.

[Above The Clouds]

Irish Steve
I know what the effects of these winds were on a light twin, but I have no way of knowing how dramatic they might have been on an aircraft like the Hunter. Am I barking up the wrong tree?


The of effect of those winds on a Hunter flying at a display weight of around 18000 Lbs and between 300 and 420Kts would not be that noticeable in the context you have explained.

[BEagle]

If you don't know what it is, don't **** with it.

Sounds like a teenage lad's debrief after a furtive fumble at the back of the Odeon with his rather-more-knowledgeable girlfriend...:uhoh:

That 'flame out' is bolleaux - it's a seagull flying between the camera and the Hunter... You can see several in other videoclips.

[Irish Steve]

The of effect of those winds on a Hunter flying at a display weight of around 18000 Lbs and between 300 and 420Kts would not be that noticeable in the context you have explained.


Thanks, that's useful, and I appreciate the response.

[JFZ90]

The F16 incident has some relevance as the final outcome was similar though thankfully without fatalities of course in that case.

KenV you make much of it not being a "missed gate", but setting the wrong gate during planning by nearly 1000ft - by not correctly factoring in the altitude of the airport - is a pretty basic mistake, and of course would look like a hugely missed gate to those spectating. Those knowing the move would expect the aircraft to climb ~60% higher than it did, so easy to understand the initial conclusion they jumped to. A big error that you could debate whether should it not have passed the "does this feel right/too early?" gut feeling for a pilot that had done the move before.

The F-16 incident does show however why conclusions can't be jumped to for this recent incident. There could be various issues to consider that are not yet apparent.

I do come back to margins however, and wonder whether they should be forced to be much higher for such "high energy pointing at the ground" type moves.

That Daily Mail flame out story is incredible. Are they really that daft? Are there no photographers (or anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge) working for the Mail that could say "er, hang on a minute guys....". It seems not!

[KenV]

KenV you make much of it not being a "missed gate", but setting the wrong gate during planning by nearly 1000ft - by not correctly factoring in the altitude of the airport - is a pretty basic mistake,

Actually, that is NOT what happened and is indeed "why conclusions can't be jumped to for this recent incident. There could be various issues to consider that are not yet apparent."

I do come back to margins however, and wonder whether they should be forced to be much higher for such "high energy pointing at the ground" type moves. The Thunderbirds have increased the margin for this maneuver (but not all vertical maneuvers) by 1000 ft.

[jindabyne]

I'm not current on any type, and have no direct involvement in aviation activity, other than painting. But I do have 2500 hours on the Hunter, was a solo aeros display pilot, and a member of a four-ship Hunter formation team. I was also a BoI President involving two fatal RAF accidents, and staffed many others. Please PM me if you want an exchange of views on this tragic event.

[Chris Scott]

Quotes from RetiredF4 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/566533-hawker-hunter-loss-shoreham-airshow-22.html#post9095859):
"After looking at the published graphs with the probable flightpath on this thread and the ongoing discusssion I offer another version for discussion. I asked myself, what kind of maneuver would I do at that point, and came up with neither a loop nor a 1/4 Clover leaf, I would have done just a low pass along the line. But the task might have been not to cross the A27 at that low altitude, requiring a pullup followed by a descent and some small heading change. I would have done a Barrel Roll type maneuver there, but never a 1/4 Clover Leaf."
"In the assumed flightpath the Jet comes in low and fast, turns somewhat to the right and pulls up, like the initial part of a Barrel Roll to the left. At that point prior pullup the airfield might be hidden behind the tree line. For a Barrel Roll type positioning the turn to the pullup point was too late, which the pilot might have recognized during the pullup. In order to reduce the forward travel he took the maneuver higher and further off to the left and ended slow on top, way off the final course and unprepared for the following descent. The reorientation to the intended flightpath while still inverted lead to an unplanned and unsafe increase in descent rate."

Unlike you, I have no FJ or aeros experience. But, as no one else has commented on your hypothesis, I'll say in all humility that it makes sense to me.

Nobody here is claiming to know the pilot's game plan as he returned towards the airfield from the north-east. At that stage, we can probably assume that things were going okay. Equally, no one claims to know at what stage his plan started to unravel, or whether he ever intended to pull up to a vertical pitch as he rolled to the left.

We know that at some point he deviated from his planned manoeuvre, but neither when nor why this happened. It could have been right at the beginning.

[JFZ90]

Dave: "anyone who really knows and understands WOULD NOT COMMENT."

I think you have correctly summarised why the media are putting such ill informed comments on the TV. They don't see e.g. the considered views of the miss demeanor hunter pilot as newsworthy - though this is a bit of a sad reflection on them as it is without doubt one on the most appropriate bits of commentary yet published.


KenV - without wanting to drift too much, I thought I read that assessing the gate with an erroneous height reference relative to the airfield was the fundamental cause of the F16 incident - do you have another view/insight?

I found this on the web; the contributory issues are notable of course.

According to the accident investigation board report the pilot, 31-year-old Captain Chris Stricklin, misinterpreted the altitude required to complete the "Split S" maneuver. He made his calculation based on an incorrect mean-sea-level altitude of the airfield. The pilot incorrectly climbed to 1,670 feet above ground level instead of 2,500 feet before initiating the pull down to the Split S maneuver.

When he realized something was wrong, the pilot put maximum back stick pressure and rolled slightly left to ensure the aircraft would impact away from the crowd should he have to eject. He ejected when the aircraft was 140 feet above ground - just 0.8 seconds prior to impact. He sustained only minor injuries from the ejection. There was no other damage to military or civilian property.

The aircraft, valued at about $20.4 million, was destroyed.

The difference in altitudes at Nellis and Mountain Home may have contributed to the pilot's error. The airfield at Nellis is at 2,000 feet whereas the one at Mountain Home is at 3,000 feet. It appears that the pilot reverted back to his Nellis habit pattern for a split second. Thunderbird commander Lt. Col. Richard McSpadden said Stricklin had performed the stunt around 200 times, at different altitudes during his year as a Thunderbird pilot.

McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake," says Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious spot on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says McSpadden. "He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."

The maneuver the pilot was trying to complete is called the "Split S Maneuver." The stunt requires that the pilot climb to 2,500 feet. Investigators say Stricklin only climbed to 1,670 feet before he went into the spinning roll.

The board determined other factors substantially contributed to creating the opportunity for the error including the requirement to convert sea level altitude information from the F-16 instruments - to their altitude above ground and call out that information to a safety operator below.

But the Air Force has now changed that as a result of the crash. Thunderbird pilots will now call out the MSL (mean-sea-level) altitudes as opposed to the AGL (above-ground-level) altitudes.

Thunderbird pilots will now also climb an extra 1000 feet before performing the Split S Maneuver to prevent another mistake like the one on Sep.14, 2003 from happening again.


For the avoidance of doubt, the causes of the F16 incident may have no relevance whatsoever to Shoreham of course.

[Davef68]

Not sure if it's been posted yet but new video clip showing a "flameout".

Shoreham air show video shows Hawker Hunter jet before A27 crash | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3211396/Video-shows-Shoreham-air-disaster-jet-appear-struggle-off.html)

I'm not convinced.

No-one seems to notice that the engine noise continues unchanged throughout the 'flame out'.

Julian Bray's comments seem surprising, but perhaps not.

[pabs1977]

Can I remind all the 'P'rofessional 'P'ilots on this 'RU'mour 'N'etwork that the whole world can see what you're saying and that (to the best of my professional observation) everything you are saying is purely conjecture.
Please show respect to our fallen colleague and the innocent victims that were caught up in this awful tragedy and maybe wait until at least a preliminary investigation is published by the AAIB before you cast another personal opinion.
Think what your family would feel if they read about your potential accident on a public Aviation Forum.
Just saying.
Pabs.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

JFZ90..just out of curiosity,do you know who is responsible for that "article" you found on the Web?
Fine offer Jindy, but you'll have scared them off now.
(Military navigator, minimal hours on the 2 seater Hunter, zilch aeros experience, but do know the significent difference twixt height and altitude and am still working out "altitude above ground level")

[DaveUnwin]

Exactly JFZ90. Indeed, if you read Jonathan Whaley's excellent FB post carefully, you'll see he expressly and explicitly states that he has no intention of commenting on the accident, which is exactly what any real expert would do. There's probably an Inverse Law of Compliance somewhere that states that the more vehemently an 'expert' states an opinion, the more that opinion should be treated with the utmost contempt and disdain. The inherent proof of this Inverse Law of Compliance can be seen whenever the BBC and ITN trot out the Brays and Sharps of this world.
Anyone with any real experience or expertise will know one thing - that they don't know enough to comment.

[JFZ90]

ROG

It was just from a quick google and some sort of web article of unknown provenance. It seemed to quote the board report, so assumed it was trying to summarise the 'official' outcome, though I know nothing of the F16 incident and can't vouch for the web source.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Thanks JFZ90. It was the reference to "stunt" and the confusion with "altitude" which suggests to me it was not written by an aviation person.
Matters not as it has no bearing on this tragic accident.

[Captain Kirk]

Pabs... *sigh* not everything on here is conjecture and the AAIB do not have a monopoly on the experience used to determine the cause(s) of accidents. The video reveals a number of facts, not least that the Hunter ran out of height and struck the ground. Working backwards, objectively, reveals a great deal. Deduction is a science.

I just don't think that we are entitled to be quite as guarded with information as we are generally inclined to be - this event is tragically unusual and it is not just one of our own who has suffered appallingly as a result. That said, the admittedly rife speculation by the uninformed is unhelpful - and I also agree that the public/press will be unable to differentiate between the two. The latest 'flameout' tripe is case in point - and for the public/press that are reading these posts, if the engine flamed out in the position illustrated then a pilot - any pilot qualified to be flying an aeroplane of this class - would spot-roll out and position for a forced landing or a controlled ejection, NOT commit to a nose-low pull-through.

So for the BBC, et al, please stop quoting idiots with zero relevant experience - you are, by association, making yourselves look like idiots...

[Reheat On]

Courtney Mil

There is a hint of what may be wing rock shortly before impact.

--------------------------

I took this and it rather confirms your comment

Still trying to beat the upload issues so link only for now

http://1drv.ms/1hgDUWG

[melmothtw]

the Hunter ran out a height before striking the ground.

Best post so far!

[JointShiteFighter]

...and again I didn't say it was pilot error, I said it was poorly flown.

That's basically the same thing. :rolleyes:

[Courtney Mil]

A few people have remarked about posts that aren't showing up. Hopefully our excellent mods can shed some light, but it may not be a deliberate action on their part. The site seems to have been unusually busy which may be maxing the server out. It seems unlikely that benign posts would be deleted while some of the more contentious ones left up.

We're generally given a fair amount of latitude here so posts are only normally deleted with good reason. Of course, I haven't seen the posts in question.

Any ideas, Mods?

[Courtney Mil]

Mel,

"The best post so far". Good call! :D


The video reveals a number of facts, not least that the Hunter ran out of height and struck the ground. Working backwards, objectively, reveals a great deal. Deduction is a science.

I maintain that the aircraft striking the ground is pretty much the only fact one can deduce from the video with any reasonable degree of certainty.

I just don't think that we are entitled to be quite as guarded with information as we are generally inclined to be

I may have misunderstood you (please read on and I'll explain), but your use of the the word "entitled" could cause some to infer that you feel we have some form of duty to start drawing conclusions from the video and publishing them in public. The only people that have such a duty are those conducting the official inquiry, those that will see ALL the facts and that have the real expertise in interpreting them.

That said, I agree with your point about rife speculation and, more specifically, about the latest "flameout" theory. If your meaning about duty referred to debunking that kind of bolleaux (to borrow BEgle's favourite retort in such cases), then I fully concur.

My concern is that folk here (this is not directed at anyone in particular) don't fuel or incite new speculation either deliberately or, more likely, inadvertently by drawing conclusions too early. Do do have a duty here to understand that the hundreds (literally) of lurkers viewing this forum see a number of experts making, possibly, far more credible statements that could be construed as proven fact. Anyone that even appears to support the wild claims from the media are simply adding credibility to them and may convince more Mr J Publics to believe they now know what happened.

I really think I've said enough on this subject so will now wind my neck in. Honest! No, really!

[PPRuNe Towers]

We've been binning the moaning regarding the self serving media 'experts' flocking to comment on this and any other accident

As has been made absolutely clear on this thread, the genuinely experienced and current won't speak to the media and this has been so for decades.

Therefore reporting can't and won't ever get better.

It's a waste of pixels and server capacity while PPRuNers just make themselves feel better with a healthy, blood pressure inducing then reducing tirade. We've had twenty years of it here on the site. It's never done a thing to change anything and is utterly pointless.

We also thin out the constant repetition of the same points made time and time again in a way that allows a theme or themes to be discussed over a page or two with much less distraction.

Rob

[Pontius Navigator]

Thank you, much better ppruning here than Rob on the R&N where he sent me to the cooler a few months back and forgot about me.

Had to use an alias to keep reading :)

[KenV]

KenV - without wanting to drift too much, I thought I read that assessing the gate with an erroneous height reference relative to the airfield was the fundamental cause of the F16 incident - do you have another view/insight? From the article you cited: "It appears that the pilot reverted back to his Nellis habit pattern for a split second."

The F-16 pilot computed everything correctly and had the correct altimeter setting for this location. And he had performed this maneuver hundreds of times at a lower altitude and could do it by "instinct". For whatever reason his concentration slipped for a split second and he reverted to instinct when he rolled inverted and pulled, from which at this location with a higher ground elevation was not recoverable.

The reason I brought this accident up at all is simple. One poster here insisted with absolute certainty that it was "plainly obvious" from the video that the Hunter pilot was performing a 1/4 clover maneuver, and that the pilot had "obviously" executed it "poorly". So I challenged him (repeatedly) to view the video of the F-16 accident and tell me what was wrong with that loop maneuver. That video showed the maneuver from both outside and inside the cockpit. He failed to recognize that the maneuver was NOT a loop at all but a split S, which is TOTALLY different than a loop. He ASSUMED the F-16 was performing a loop because he had read it was a loop and despite abundant very obvious visual evidence to the contrary and coaching telling him something was not right and to look carefully, he did not see it was not a loop. All he saw was a loop, because that is what he had read. In the same way, he ASSUMED the Hunter was performing a 1/4 clover because he had read it was a 1/4 clover. But there was no way to know. In other words, he engaged in wild speculation based on what is likely a wildly false assumption.

[Pittsextra]

Ken - to be clear I didn't assume anything in your F16 video. Actually by the time I got home to view things many posts had been deleted here and you'd been chatting about it on a different thread which kind of made any input irrelevant.

I'm real sorry to say this but ultimately I have no idea the point you are trying to make with this because frankly in your F-16 example loop, half roll/half loop (Split S in USA) is regardless because the looping element ended with the once fully working aircraft in a million pieces. I think you are trying to make a horse race out of nothing tbh.

You are of course very welcome to your own opinion on the figure being flown (which by the way I didn't read it was a 1/4 clover.. I can see with my own eyes that it looks like a 1/4 clover) , you are very welcome to suggest I am wrong. It would of course help if you would give a view or opinion as to why you think I'm wrong - with specific reference to what you can see but either way its pretty far from WILD speculation. Even in your F16 case you enjoy so much mistaking the half looping element for a loop is not really WILDLY wrong!

Anyway read this:-

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5423034540f0b61346000c79/6-2009_G-HURR.pdf

See page 31 point 4.1 and I guess any AAIB interim report will be able to give absolute clarity as to what the sequence was. I'll leave it there.

[Fluffy Bunny]

I've got a shovel if you want to keep digging Pitts.....

[Lonewolf_50]

Courtney Mil

There is a hint of what may be wing rock shortly before impact.

http://1drv.ms/1hgDUWGIn an effort to understand, in the case of the Hunter: is a wing rock, a one such as is being discussed, associated with any kind of stall or is it more closely associated with an accelerated stall?

(I did note an observation along these lines either here or on R&N regarding swept wing characteristics).

[ZeBedie]

It seems highly likely that if it stalled, it was an accelerated stall doesn't it? The idea that it stalled at its 1g stall speed is hard to accept.

[KenV]

Even in your F16 case you enjoy so much mistaking the half looping element for a loop is not really WILDLY wrong!

Wow. You really enjoy digging yourself deeper and deeper, don't you? A loop is performed wings level from beginning to end. There is no roll. In a loop the aircraft goes inverted by rotating ONLY in pitch and not in roll. The energy state of the aircraft is constantly changing throughout the entire maneuver. In a split S the aircraft goes inverted by rotating only in roll and NOT in pitch. It is a totally different maneuver with totally different energy states. Arguing they are the same or even similar is to show a GROSS lack of very basic understanding. If you can't "see with your own eyes" the difference between a loop and a split S and do not understand the very significant difference between the two, you are grossly unqualified to "see with your own eyes" if the Hunter pilot was attempting a 1/4 clover.

And oh yes, your link to the accident report for the Hurricane accident further cements your gross misunderstanding of very basic flight maneuvering. The only thing that Hurricane accident had in common with this Hunter accident was the location.

[Courtney Mil]

Lonewolf, yes, absolutely an accelerated stall. You might get a wing drop in a 1g stall. I would explain the mechanics of it, but better I leave it to a QFI or someone with more Hunter hours than I.

[Pittsextra]

Ken - are we just having an argument for the sake of it here? Why are we getting hung up on the F16? I said to you before that I had no idea which elements people were commenting upon previously in the video you posted BUT my point was this - if the piece of film is partial and starts such that they don't see the roll element and all they saw was an F16 pulling through in a split-S and mis-took that for a loop, what is the point? you are trying to force this to fit the Hunter film where I can see the thing flying erect beforehand from a camera outside! I'm not seeing a partial film from on board. Frankly I couldn't give a fukk about the F16 it's just your insistence that because I didn't engage in your F16 riddle that I can't see a Hunter go from Erect flight and pull up into a 1/4 clover - which it fails to complete before striking the ground. I don't see the link! When you see the film what figure do you see?

I didn't comment upon the Hurricane accident other than the recommendations are clear.

[Mach Two]

Pitts, this is just an observation, which you may ignore as you see fit.

As you may have noticed, this thread is now being dragged way off course and too many pages are being taken up by members trying to get you to soften your approach and to moderate the way you express some of your statements. If you don't like what others say either leave it alone of engage reasonably.

KenV can be an argumentative old git, but he does at least conform with expectations of the forum (in his own, slightly rebellious way). If you choose to engage there expect him to reply in kind, which he has done in this case and not without provocation on your part.

Discussions do get heated here sometimes, but most of us know when to consider with a little care the message that others are sending and understand when to step back a little.

I'm guessing you're not in active service and I doubt you have a service background. Therefore, a little respect here for the spirit of this forum and its intended users probably wouldn't go amiss.

Just an observation intended to keep things relevant, down to simmering and a little less aggressive.

[PX927]

I was at the Shoreham Airshow on Saturday and I hope all the loved ones / family members / friends of the victims can come to terms with this tragic event as quickly and as painlessly as possible. I also hope that Andy Hill can make a full recovery. I expect neither will be easy.

As a non-flyer and outsider, I have appreciated contributors' views on the events of the day, but at this point, I wonder if for future threads on accidents that their might be a new approach, which is: you are allowed one post to the thread and no further contributions. This means that you will have to enter a considered, precise and clear statement which doesn't then generate a series of qualifications, expansions, retractions and denials as other people respond to your post. In doing so, you should of course only offer your view and not comment on others that have gone before. Only when some official findings have been published does the thread (or its successor) revert to type.

Yes I know it's a "discussion" forum, but I can't help thinking of Monty Python and the Argument sketch at various points in this thread.

I shall now revert to where I started before I broke my own self-imposed rule: better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or am I supposed to say, hat,

[Lonewolf_50]

It seems highly likely that if it stalled, it was an accelerated stall doesn't it? The idea that it stalled at its 1g stall speed is hard to accept. Indeed, I assumed that, but sometimes it is best I ask to make sure I have my mind right since I am not familiar with the type.
@Courtney Mil
Lonewolf, yes, absolutely an accelerated stall. You might get a wing drop in a 1g stall. I would explain the mechanics of it, but better I leave it to a QFI or someone with more Hunter hours than I. Thanks.

@PX
Yes I know it's a "discussion" forum, but I can't help thinking of Monty Python and the Argument sketch at various points in this thread. Taking the Python, are we? :}:8:cool:

[Stanwell]

I do think someone should have a nice cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie-down.

Have there been any further findings or an indication that the AAIB might publish a preliminary report?
I ask this because the media frenzy, fuelled by 'experts', shows no signs of abating.

[MPN11]

Now how about killing all the toing and froing about F16s

As one who has nothing to contribute, but is just trying to listen to those who know Hunter aeros, or can at least cast specific light on this sad event ... I couldn't agree more. :ok:

The background noise and inter-personal play is really making it not worth continuing to try to follow the thread.

I'm surprised Douglas Bader's [Bristol] Bulldog crash hasn't been mentioned :eek:

[Courtney Mil]

PN, PX, Stan, MPN, Fluffy and others,

I get your feelings. I for one apologise for taking up too much space here pushing my "don't speculate in public" cause. As I have said, I hereby cease (unless...)

A lot of relevant posts have gone unanswered as a result of the bickering.

I agree, drop the F-16 discussion, which is never going to get a meaningful reply. Back to the real issue.

Those upset by the distractions, please continue to post your thoughts, questions and opinions. I commend MT's "observations" to those with doubts.

Courtney

[Pure Pursuit]

The bottom line is that a number of innocents died whilst having NOTHING to do with the airshow. My thoughts are with them and of course AH (who knew the risks). That's what this thread should be about... Respect and condolences.

Right now, the cause of the crash is almost irrelevant. CFIT, mech failure, whatever. That will all become clear in due course and no one here is capable of expediting that timeline.

There are too many people on here exhibiting a huge amount of self importance, whilst the likes of CM try to keep the field level. Please stop willy waving and show some respect. Your opinions towards the cause of the crash do not matter one iota in the big scheme of things. Speculation should be kept private and out of reach of the Daily Hate etc....

I honestly believe that this thread is doing nothing more than fuel the ignorant media.

[Chinny Crewman]

I honestly believe that this thread is doing nothing more than fuel the ignorant media.

I disagree, if some obviously very experienced individuals on here debunked some of the wilder theories (deliberately landed on the A27?!) and offered the media some reasoned explanations/possibilities then maybe they wouldn't have to rely on pseudo experts to misinform the public and shape the debate?

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, your posts are to the point and welcome.

PX927, with respect I disagree. If someone makes their considered, precise and clear contribution but makes a completely erroneous post then it is only right that those more expert make a correction.

In the case in point the aircraft has been a WW 2 Hawker Hunter Mk 4 or was it Mk 6, was modified from a single seater to two-seats and had reheat. One of those items is correct. Would you have us not refute the errors.

I don't expect a response.

[Pure Pursuit]

To reiterate, I think CM's posts, along with some others have been excellent however, there are too many people on here posting opinions that are not helpful.

We all know that PP is a 'source' for many Journos. Let's not fuel the gits.

Speculating about incidents where there was no loss of life is one thing; guessing about events leading to a heavy loss of life is simply not on.

[Courtney Mil]

Some time ago Ali Qadoo (sp?) remarked that Craig Penrice had made a statement to the Sun. Sorry, I've allowed myself to become distracted. There's a photo of part of the article on Craig's FB page, but I'm trying to find the article which was page 7 on 24 Aug because Craig will have given a good account.

BBC reported:

The Sun hears from former RAF pilot Craig Penrice, who has flown with Hill, who says he'd be surprised if pilot error caused the crash. "The pilot could have lost consciousness from the G-force, misread something, he could have hit a bird, which could have cost him thrust. We just don't know."

If anyone finds the article would you be so kind as to post a link here?

[Bill Macgillivray]

I feel that we should await the findings of the AAIB before becoming too involved with our own ideas of what may have happened! However much experience on the Hunter we may have, none of us know anything about what happened on this very sad sortie! We can all speculate, but that is all it is! The press and so-called "experts" have already shown that they are not worth listening too and, quite frankly, are making themselves look stupid in the eyes of anyone who has flown professionally. Feed the general public, but not much in the papers today, however!! Moved on!!
My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones and those still fighting for recovery. God bless!

[falcon900]

I very much agree with the call for respect and retraint, and with that in mind would like to offer a couple of observations which I hope are seen as constructive.
Firstly, I share the general distaste for the media and their methods, but in this instance have a greater measure of tolerance than usual. This is a national-scale tragedy, and there is an understandable demand for more information and understanding. Editors will have set expectations of minutes on air and column inches to be filled, and the whole machine bursts into life to deliver them. Being inherently lazy, journalists will latch on to whatever or whoever they can find to provide "content". Pprune is a source for sure, as are any "experts" who are prepared to self certify their credentials and qualifications to justify their views being given the oxygen of publicity. Enough has already been written about the various individuals and their opinions, but an early learning emerging is that there was a need for some authoritative spokesperson to front for the display "industry". BADA made a reasonable start with the statement on their website, but a statement on a website, however sensible, cannot gain traction without a face and some advocacy and willingness to address reasonable questions in a reasonable and measured way. Captain "Winkle" Brown has attracted some criticism on here for a comment attributed to him that "it looked as if it could have been pilot error". Leaving aside for a moment his credentials, and the fact that he was an eye witness, even my mother (who is not a pilot!) thinks it could have been pilot error having seen the videos on television! The videos are particularly graphic, and whilst inconclusive as to cause at this stage, we should not be naive in thinking that people would not be reaching similar views as Winkle but for the media. In fact, I do believe the media are, for the most part, trying to establish what went wrong, as that is what their readers, not unreasonably, want to know. The Daily Hate story about an orange flash from the engine, whilst in fact spurious, did to my mind represent a sincere effort to shed light on the cause (and of course provides further evidence of journalistic laziness).
Which brings me to my second thought, which concerns risk management. The aircraft was not over Shoreham on some frolic: it was taking part in a planned event, at an authorised location, with a sanctioned display programme, a qualified pilot authorised to fly the display, and an aircraft believed to be fit for purpose. (The AAIB may differ when they investigate, but I would be surprised if any of these statements turn out to be untrue.) Part of each of the many individual approvals and authorisations which enabled the aircraft to be flying at Shoreham would be a risk assessment. Whether implicit or explicit, the process would have recognised that there were various potential risks to the successful outcome of the display, and only as a result of these risks being assessed as sufficiently low would the approvals have been granted. There could not at any stage however have been a belief that there was no risk, and in particular no belief that there was no risk that the aircraft could have an accident. In allowing an airport to operate at Shoreham, the local authority accepted the risk that there could be crashes, not just at the airfield, but inevitably in the surrounding area. In allowing there to be an air show, the local authority and the airport operators clearly accepted a higher degree of risk, and so on. Please note, I am not suggesting those killed and injured had accepted the risk, but trying to highlight that the responsibility for this accident could not solely rest with the pilot , even if it is eventually determined that his actions in some way contributed. Whatever a pilots experience, skill and judgement, displaying fast jets is a high stress, high workload activity. Humans sometimes make mistakes in such situations. As well as being entirely foreseeable, and sadly not without precedent, no risk assessment could overlook the possibility of pilot error. Should it turn out to be the case here that a mistake was made, it is very important that it is widely understood that the pilot would not be solely responsible. If the debate on Pprune can help to bring about a wider understanding of this shared responsibility, it will have served a very valuable purpose.

[Lonewolf_50]

A few more paragraph breaks would make that good post easier to read. (editor's hat now removed).
I'd like to address this part.
In allowing an airport to operate at Shoreham, the local authority accepted the risk that there could be crashes, not just at the airfield, but inevitably in the surrounding area.

In allowing there to be an air show, the local authority and the airport operators clearly accepted a higher degree of risk, and so on.

Please note, I am not suggesting those killed and injured had accepted th risk, but trying to highlight that the responsibility for this accident could not solely rest with the pilot, even if it is eventually determined that his actions in some way contributed.

Whatever a pilots experience, skill and judgment, displaying fast jets is a high stress, high workload activity. Humans sometimes make mistakes in such situations. If you would roll in the issue of the chance for mechanical malfunction, you'd have an even better post than the good one already presented. :ok:
As well as being entirely foreseeable, and sadly not without precedent, no risk assessment could overlook the possibility of pilot error. Should it turn out to be the case here that a mistake was made, it is very important that it is widely understood that the pilot would not be solely responsible.

If the debate on PPRuNe can help to bring about a wider understanding of
this shared responsibility, it will have served a very valuable purpose.
While I agree in my heart, the amount of effort spent ducking liability is pretty common currency.

[NutherA2]

PN

In the case in point the aircraft has been a WW 2 Hawker Hunter Mk 4 or was it Mk 6, was modified from a single seater to two-seats and had reheat. One of those items is correct.Two of theses items are in fact correct. In common with most of the Hunter 7&8s it was originally a Hunter F4 until it was converted to T7 standard by adding the two-seat nose section.

[mercurydancer]

at post 177

Drink driving is a crime. You have a criminal record, but you are correct that not all offences are crimes. Dropping litter may be an offence but its not a crime.

[NutLoose]

Copied over from the flypast forum

AAIB & Police appeal for Shoreham video or stills
Two requests:

1) If you witnessed the accident at the Shoreham airshow on Saturday 22 August 2015 you may contact the AAIB using our [email protected] email address.

We are particularly interested in any photos and videos that you may have taken showing the accident.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2) Anybody with pictures or video of Saturday's crash is asked to contact Sussex Police via this dedicated e-mail please.

[email protected]

JUST PROVIDE A NAME AND CONTACT NUMBER, DO NOT ATTACH THE FOOTAGE.

So if you were there, please help.

[Cows getting bigger]

falcon900, good post. The BIG question here is not necessarily about why an aircraft crashed, it is about why 11 people on the ground were killed.

I'll take your organisers risk assessment discussion one step further - does the regulator need to have a close look at it's role in air displays? Indeed, the very fact they commenced a review of their procedures only 24hrs after the crash indicates that they understand the need to look much further than the actions of the pilot and the airworthiness of the aircraft (something that AAIB will clearly sweep-up).

To me, this accident and it's impact most certainly wasn't brought about by a single point of failure; to follow the traditional route and focus on the pilot's actions would be the most inappropriate course of action for us to follow.

[Genstabler]

Red Arrows at Dartmouth Royal Regatta 2015

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is undertaking a comprehensive review of civilian air displays in the UK.

As part of this, in the last 48 hours, the CAA has amended the display permissions for the Dartmouth Royal Regatta. This affects all participants including the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, the Red Arrows - scheduled to perform at the event tomorrow (Friday, August 28) at 1815.

It has been assessed that the required changes to display heights and positioning would have reduced the visual quality of the display for the public to an unacceptable level and therefore, with regret, the Red Arrows’ will not be conducting a full display at Dartmouth this year.

The Red Arrows recognise many people will have made plans and are looking forward to seeing the team perform. Not wanting to disappoint the public, the team will, instead, conduct two flypasts – not involving aerobatics – at the Dartmouth Royal Regatta, weather-permitting.

The decision does not affect the planned display at Clacton Airshow, scheduled for 1245 tomorrow (August 28).

All aspects of flying by the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team – wherever the Red Arrows are operating – is carried out subject to rigorous and well-established aviation safety rules.

[salad-dodger]

Very well said F900 and CGB. The main issue here really is why 11 people on the ground were killed. Whilst not wishing to foretell the AAIB investigation, it is clear that it is going to identify many failings - the classics of many accidents.

It is also good to see that things are already changing and that displays are being reassessed. I don't think that this is a case of being risk averse, more a case of being risk aware. The risks of displaying vintage aircraft like the Hunter and the Gnat are real and all those involved with organising such displays need to be aware of the risks and how to manage/mitigate/eliminate such risks. Sat Driver gave an excellent summary of acceptance of risk for the different parties involved. I wonder how many display organisers are truly aware of this?

As I said in an earlier post, this tragedy was avoidable.


S-D

[Pontius Navigator]

PN

Two of theses items are in fact correct. In common with most of the Hunter 7&8s it was originally a Hunter F4 until it was converted to T7 standard by adding the two-seat nose section.

Thank you Nutter, but reading up on Wiki I see that 6 F4 were modified to become T7 but that 65 were built as T7. Generally we may assume that the T7 was based on the T7 and not modified as such.

Regarding the 6 that were modified, did that include the subject aircraft?

Either way , the way it read in the media was that it was a recent (post-service) cut and shut job.

[Courtney Mil]

A couple of sources confirm 372's history:

WV372 was built as an F.4 in 1955.
Converted into a T.7 in 1959
Flew as a civilian a/c in 1998.



WV372 was built as an F.4 and first flew on 15th July 1955. Delivered to 222(F) Squadron on 2nd September 1955, around a year later her rear fuselage was badly damaged by an in-flight fire caused by hot exhaust gases escaping when the jetpipe detached from the engine. Returned to Hawkers, she was repaired and converted to a T.7 and returned to the RAF (5 MU) on May 1959. She went on to serve with the RAF Jever and Gutersloh Station Flights, II(AC) Squadron (in whose colours she ended her civilian flying career) and 4 FTS. After retirement she was one of Jet Heritage's airworthy Hunters and carried out one of her first public displays in 1998. Since then the aircraft has changed hands several times, having been owned by the Fox One consortium (based at Kemble), then Conciair Ltd and then Hunter Flying (based for some time at Exeter, and part of the short-lived Team Viper display team, before moving to their new base at St. Athan). She was put up for sale once, ending up based with new owners at North Weald and returned to the airshow circuit. Sadly on 22nd August 2015 she crashed at the Shoreham Airshow, impacting a busy road junction and causing multiple ground fatalities - the first in the UK since 1952 due in no small part to the strict safety regime put in place by the Civil Aviation Authority. As an immediate result, Hunter flying has been temporarily banned and high energy aerobatic manouevres by vintage jets over land have been banned too. At the time of writing pilot Andy Hill is fighting for his life in hospital.

[Above The Clouds]

Salad-Dodger
The main issue here really is why 11 people on the ground were killed. Whilst not wishing to foretell the AAIB investigation, it is clear that it is going to identify many failings - the classics of many accidents.

It is also good to see that things are already changing and that displays are being reassessed. I don't think that this is a case of being risk averse, more a case of being risk aware. The risks of displaying vintage aircraft like the Hunter and the Gnat are real and all those involved with organising such displays need to be aware of the risks and how to manage/mitigate/eliminate such risks. Sat Driver gave an excellent summary of acceptance of risk for the different parties involved. I wonder how many display organisers are truly aware of this?

As I said in an earlier post, this tragedy was avoidable.


What would your view point have been if this accident had involved a modern jet, say a Typhoon ?