Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

[BEagle]

Whether or not it's germane to this particular incident, this is what I wrote some 5 years ago when discussing why 'aileron rolls', sometimes termed 'victory rolls' are so dangerous:

Anyway, back to the dangers of the 'victory roll'....

Usually observed to start from a high speed approach, balls-out on the deck, followed by a climbing aileron roll. As the aircraft runs in at high speed, it will very likely be trimmed for such speed.

Pulling up, it will begin to decelerate. Full aileron and rudder to balance will cause a lot of drag, so it'll decelerate even more. It has now slowed down and the untrimmed state will tend to pitch the aircraft nose down as the roll progresses; the pilot may well pull against this, reducing the apex height accordingly.

As the roll reaches the final wings level state, the aircraft will probably be descending and significantly out of trim. In addition, the attitude needed for level flight at the new speed will require a higher pitch angle than did the initial beat up. So the pilot may well need full aft control column to stop the descent and to oppose the out of trim state......and recovery to level flight may well take longer than anticipated, or may not be achieved until terra firma prevents any further descent.

And how many of us have seen Bloggs cock-up a barrel roll and bury the nose on exit....?

Andy was very lucky not to have speared into the crowd having fallen out of that poorly flown manoeuvre at Southport, in my opinion.

[AtomKraft]

Well, I'm not an aerobatic pilot, or ex-RAF but I don't think you have to be either to see what's going on here.

That roll in the JP was poorly flown, but luckily he got away with it. Luckily for the spectators in particular.....
The manoeuvre in the Hunter looks about the same deal- Again, not well flown, but unfortunately a poorer outcome.

Maybe the AAIB will turn up some mitigating factor (s), but this pilot doubts it.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Cows getting bigger]

So, the conversation appears to be leading in the direction of DAs and FCCs.

[Above The Clouds]

Courtney Mil
Are you trying to use the height of the speaker as a means of judging the height of the aircraft? Without knowing the height of the camera, the height of the speaker and the relative distances between aircraft, speaker and camera, that it meaningless and, frankly, somewhat typical of trying to use YuoTube video to make out that something is way more dramatic than it really is.


No I am not trying to use the speaker pole to estimate the height, earlier posters were commenting on a previous video that didn't offer a background reference other than an individuals head that popped in to view. The later video from youtube I posted showed a different angle and offered some ground features including the pier that was over flown. (neither video was taken by myself)

And as you have mentioned witnesses; the roll was flown North to South parallel to the crowd line, it was royally f***ed up while passing the inverted position. The recovery took place to the East as a result of continuing the roll which was now directed towards and crowd line, it may also have passed over the crowd during an almost 180 degree climbing turn opposite to the original axis of the roll entry.

As this airshow takes place over the beach many viewers sit in the sand dunes to the South away from the main crowds giving a better view. With this particular incident the person who watched it unfold was sat along the North South axis of the manoeuvre giving a very clear view of the height assisted by objects, people, etc in the back ground, you can be assured it was close to impact with the beach.

Had it hit the beach the impact point would have been very close if not in to the spectators.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Beagle is VERY wide of the mark, in my years of instructing (refresher students and standardising instructors) on RAF jets, never heard it said that a victory or aileron roll is a particularly dangerous manoeuvre. They have a technique which makes them a simple and safe aerobatic. Raise the nose to a suitable angle, apply (full) aileron, a touch of rudder perhaps, wait for wings level and fly away! Without any elevator input the nose WILL be lower than on entry, and that determines the pitch attitude to be used at entry.

As for needing full aft stick to stop the descent, that would produce a possibly severe G stall, to say that suggests a serious misunderstanding of control and stability. Pulling to just nibble at the buffet was the technique to get the best pitch rate from the JP.

And air displays are not flown by "Bloggs" .

From what I saw in that video , a perfectly safe roll was seriously mishandled, period.

The exact height of the roll is irrelevant, it was done very low, and too much height was lost in the roll, it was not difficult to roll the JP without any height loss and there was enough control authority to push to minus 2.5 g when inverted, but with a time limit imposed by fuel recuperator capacity.

[BEagle]

Retired BA/BY wrote:They have a technique which makes them a simple and safe aerobatic. Raise the nose to a suitable angle, apply (full) aileron, a touch of rudder perhaps, wait for wings level and fly away! Without any elevator input the nose WILL be lower than on entry, and that determines the pitch attitude to be used at entry.


Well quite. Absolutely fine if the pitch attitude at entry is correct and the manoeuvre is flown at a safe height.

Whereas many 'victory rolls' simply weren't - with the obvious result.

I know that 'Bloggs' doesn't normally fly low level aeros, but the point was that pilots making a mess of barrel rolls was a common event - usually because of insufficient pitch at entry.

[air pig]

ATC, I was at Southport in a position where the JP was coming directly at me, if he hadn't managed to recover the aircraft I may not be sat here typing this. This could have been another Ramstein.

I was standing on the sea wall and in front of me there was about 100 to 150 yards in depth of spectators, cars and vendors on the beach. If he hadn't recovered he would very possibly have hit them.

[crazy council]

not sure ?

but i think this may be a video of the full display from 2014 of the jet provost

https://youtu.be/ZHngQ8TmqU4

( someone asked earlier if there was a video from the pier )

[deefer dog]

In the example here of the speaker on a pole, a speaker mounted on a ten foot pole, ten feet from a six foot cameraman would appear to line up with an object at over 100 feet 100 yards away, roughly. Numbers done in my head using old money. As you don't know the height of the camera, the height of the speaker or the horizontal distance between any of the three objects, you can't do any sums to calculate the height of the aircraft. Get it?


That you had to explain that speaks volumes about what basis for understanding you are dealing with.

I disagree. The fact that he bothered to explain it to the regulars on a Military forum leads me to conclude that he believes that he has a monopoly on wisdom.

[Courtney Mil]

That's extremely kind of of you Deefer. Thank you.

My explanation was directed at those that had already demonstrated that they do not understand and some others that are not regulars, but that pitch up here full of bile and devoid of aviation knowledge when something bad happens.

[blimey]

Up up rudder rudder push push rudder rudder pull.

Piece of cake. :hmm:

[Basil]

blimey, isn't that a slow roll? ;)

Talking about people not getting the nose high enough at the commencement of a barrel roll; WIWOV, it was noted, by an eagle eyed person, that the upper surfaces of the wings were a little wavy. Turned out that some imaginative chaps had tried to barrel roll it; perfectly doable, of course, if you do it properly.

[Flying Lawyer]

2 things concern me.


Why anyone in the Sussex Police thought it appropriate to disclose that they are investigating an earlier incident knowing, unless he/she was a naive half-wit, that there was a very high risk the information would be leaked to the press and, if it was, that the press would certainly publicise the earlier incident.
.
Why anyone here thinks it appropriate or fair to criticise the pilot on an open public forum, in relation to either or both incidents, when he is still at risk of being prosecuted.
There is an obvious risk that potential jurors will be influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by what they read here or see quoted in the press. Quotes from PPRuNe regularly appear in the press when there is an aviation accident or incident. Journalists assume, understandably given the site name, that all contributors to discussions on PPRuNe are professional pilots whereas many are not and never have been pilots of any sort except in their dreams.
Chatting in the privacy of a crew-room is very different from publishing potentially damaging opinions on the internet.

[O-P]

FL,

Thank you, well said.

[50+Ray]

Agreed. Thank you FL.
Ray

[Courtney Mil]

FL, exactly the point I and several others have been trying to make since this thread began. Drawing conclusions that attempt to apportion blame without being in possession of all the facts and with (evidently) little knowledge of the subject is plain wrong.

[deefer dog]

I agree in part with FL. Sure, it's not fair to apportion blame until the result of an investigation or trail (if appropriate) comes in.

However it is human nature to speculate and draw conclusions, even early ones. It's also human nature to gossip and it's been happening since the dawn of time. Small town gossip has been taking place ahead of small town court cases for years. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

I stand to be corrected, but I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to say (or write on pprune) ahead of his trial that "I think it was the butler who dunnit with the candlestick," and could do so without fear of being prosecuted myself.

[Mach Two]

There are plenty of things in life you can do without fear of prosecution, but it does not necessarily make them right. Read all the way to the end of Flying Lawyer's post and you might see another good reason why expressing your views here comes with a certain responsibility. But I doubt that will influence you terribly much.

Perhaps it's just a slow day on the Bis Jets and Agricultural Flying forum, or whatever it's called.

[sittingstress]

I woz a GDT Rock and did a stint with 16 Sqn (The Saints) prior to the Gulf War and flew 1hr 45mins in a Fin Jet therefore I know everyfing about this flying malarkey. AH should have had more AR5 training and not been allowed to skimp his pistol TOETs. More gas = better pilot. Trust me :)

This opinion is as relevant as some others on the main subject and offered with the same amount of technical expertise.

Per Ardua

Oh yeah please will ex-techies wave their wallets at me, especially armourers :)

[Onceapilot]

Well Deefer, as far as I am aware, you may say what you wish but, others may take legal action against you and, you might be found guilty if they can prove their case. Furthermore, I believe that aspects of internet forums are more akin to the written word and, their widespread coverage can add weight to any action taken against a poster. :ooh:

OAP

[clareprop]

The video of the Southport display is in the public domain. It is there for all to see and has been for a while -as have the comments from the display managers on the day. Similarly, the Shoreham display incident has been seen by millions and commented on widely. There have been no arrests or charges so presumably the media (which nowadays seems to include social media), are free to comment as they wish. I guess, should it go to trial, FL and his colleagues will, as they have had to do for years, just exhort the jury to put anything they have read or seen from their minds - much as juries have had to do in the recent 'celebrity' abuse trials - and as always, concentrate on evidence as presented.

[deefer dog]

OAP and Mach Two:

There you go, you have both just proved the point I was trying to make. You've not let the stated facts get in the way of the story you want to write about, and neither of you appear to have read fully my post before you went to print!

I agree in part with FL. Sure, it's not fair to apportion blame until the result of an investigation or trail (if appropriate) comes in.


It may have been an inconvenience prior to your attack and critisism of me, but my opening line is pretty crystal clear, is it not? And yes Mach Two, I do tend to frequent the biz jets forum (that's what I do now), but nowhere there, or on any other forum, will you have seen me apportion blame or criticize any pilot, either before or even after the BOI or findings!

What you both missed by a wide margin in your haste to apportion blame in my direction was that I was pointing out what is a natural human behavior. My statement was factually correct - it was not in any way criticism of the pilot involved in this discussion!

[Courtney Mil]

Well, I read your post in full. It said it's not fair to apportion blame without all the facts, but it's human nature and you're going to do it anyway.

What I didn't see was anyone making an "attack" on you.

[deefer dog]

.....and you're going to do it anyway.

If you believe you read that dude, carry on kidding yourself!

[Heathrow Harry]

"Why anyone in the Sussex Police thought it appropriate to disclose that they are investigating an earlier incident knowing, unless he/she was a naive half-wit, that there was a very high risk the information would be leaked to the press and, if it was, that the press would certainly publicise the earlier incident."

because the police have their own agenda's and they can't be trusted not to leak like a sieve when it suits them - and that's verbatim from my Media Training course

at least these days they're less likely to take backhanders from the newspapers when they do it :ouch::ouch:

[PhilipG]

Please excuse a process question being asked here.

What is the process when a Flying Display Director has reason to question the competence / safety / fitness/ whatever of a pilot who has displayed in one of his displays, to use the vernacular the FDD decides to Red Card the pilot?

Obviously a Red Card does not lead to an AAIB inquiry, there has been no accident, is there a independent review of the pilot's fitness to display, or is it just a local event?

[dsc810]

The trouble with Flying Lawyer's stance on discussion is that virtually EVERY "accident" whether that be in the air or in a car could possibly lead to a prosecution for some violation of law.
So that means following the above logic we can pretty well shut down PPRUNE and every other web forum as we would be not allowed to discuss incidents or accidents - any of them until both the AAIB report is out and the police/DPP have stated there are not going to prosecute: whether that was the pilot, the CAA, the maintenance or anyone else.
This accident in particular has been and is being discussed in virtually every forum I know - even on ISP forums plus the non UK ones outside of UK legal jurisdiction.

As regards any criticism of the pilot - well sorry, but the AAIB let the cat out of the bag good and proper as to the direction they were looking in their Special Bulletin S3/2015 of the 4th Sept 2015.
This gave the speed of the aircraft inverted at the top of the "loop", and a pretty good estimate of the altitude. They mentioned internal cameras showing the instrument panel and further stated that to date no abnormal indications have been identified and that throughout the flight the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs.
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi

[airsound]

PN - you wroteAFAIK there is no central organisation of display directors though I imagine there is informal discussion between organizers of good displays and bad ones, good pilots and bad (and speaking from experience I am not referring to their flying - no names no pack drill). In the military it will probably be boss to boss. In the civie world a dry up of bookings.Perish the thought, but I think you may be a bit behind the times. The British Air Display Association (BADA) includes amongst its members most flying display directors (FDDs). Next week BADA holds its pre-season symposium, in conjunction with the CAA and the Military Aviation Authority (MAA). The post-Shoreham situation and what the CAA is doing about it will undoubtedly take up much of the two days of the symposium, and FDDs will be expecting to learn a lot about how things are going to be in future.

Your idea of military bosses whispering hints in each other's shell-likes is also a little out of date. The MAA is deeply involved in air show safety, and military display flying is regulated in minute detail.

In any case, although there are formally-constituted military display teams - and they appear at shows of all kinds - there are almost no military air shows left in the UK. Last year there was only one RAF air show, and that was Cosford. There was also RIAT - run by the RAF Charitable Trust, but it does come under MAA's aegis. And there were also, of course, the Navy shows at Yeovilton and Culdrose.

airsound

[Flying Lawyer]

The niceties of the relevant law are a secondary consideration. The primary objective should be to avoid any risk of potential jurors being influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by what is posted in our forums.
That applies whether what they read is accurate or, as is sometimes the case, utter nonsense - whether posted by experienced professional pilots or members of the Armchair Accident Investigation Bureau.

deefer dog
It is human nature to do all sorts of things, some good and some bad. If you cannot see for yourself any reason not to add to the risk of unfairness then there is nothing I could say to persuade you.
The fact that we are legally entitled to do something does not mean that it is necessarily a responsible thing to do.

clareprop
This may come as a surprise to you but, after 41 years working in the criminal legal system, I was well aware of the direction to juries to ignore media reports when I posted my concerns.
I hope that the direction is effective and believe that juries usually take their duties seriously but given (a) that jury discussions take place in private, are not recorded and remain confidential and (b) the weaknesses inherent in human nature, there is no way of knowing if they all abide by the direction.

dsc810
The trouble with Flying Lawyer's stance on discussion is that virtually EVERY "accident" whether that be in the air or in a car could possibly lead to a prosecution for some violation of law.
I disagree but, even if what you say was correct, in this instance there is not some vague theoretical risk. We know that there is an ongoing police investigation which might lead to a prosecution.
So that means following the above logic
Your idea of "logic", not mine. the AAIB let the cat out of the bag good and proper as to the direction they were looking in their Special Bulletin S3/2015 of the 4th Sept 2015. There is a theoretical risk but it is highly unlikely that many, if any, potential jurors read AAIB reports.
AAIB findings are not used nor referred to in criminal trials.


Given that PPRuNe is widely known as, and often referred to in the media as, a 'professional pilots forum' I believe we have a corresponding responsibility to behave responsibly. More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum.

[LlamaFarmer]

I disagree but, even if what you say was correct, in this instance there is not some vague theoretical risk. We know that there is an ongoing police investigation which might lead to a prosecution.

Your idea of "logic", not mine. There is a theoretical risk but it is highly unlikely that many, if any, potential jurors read AAIB reports.
AAIB findings are not used nor referred to in criminal trials.


Given that PPRuNe is widely known as, and often referred to in the media as, a 'professional pilots forum' I believe we have a corresponding responsibility to behave responsibly. More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum.

What about for trials of well publicised crime reported in the media and discussed in forums everywhere.

It is unavoidable for the jury to be unaware of what is reported, it is for them to remain impartial and consider only what goes on inside the courtroom, and not to seek information from external sources.



You cannot silence the public and take away their liberties... just ensure a fair trial and a verdict based on fair hearing, not what is or isn't in the public domain

[comedyjock]

What about Yeovilton and Culdrose? Although not RAF, I am sure they are military!

[mrangryofwarlingham]

Is a great thing according to most.
For sure there will be cases when this freedom is pushed beyond the bounds of decency.
However, for me far better that than to remove the freedom.

[airsound]

You are, of course, quite right, comedyjock - and I apologise to the Navy. I should have said 'RAF air shows', not military air shows. Appropriate changes made.

Sorry!

airsound

[The Old Fat One]

I could not possibly disagree more with flying lawyer...we are privileged to live a free society with free speech and the internet has extended that. To what degree that is moderated is a matter personal judgement, forum moderation and the laws of defamation, which apply here.

The point about jurors is specious in the extreme. Jurors are now routinely warned about looking stuff up on the internet (done jury duty recently, it is part of the pre-briefing procedure) and accounts of where jurors have erred are already widely known.

Jurors jailed for contempt of court over internet use - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23495785)

If jurors have pre-knowledge of a case they are required to declare it before the trial starts and they are excused. If they research anywhere after the trial starts they have committed a criminal offence.

Finally, the discussion of accidents wherever, whenever, is primarily for education of the aviation community, to promote flight safety and to save lives. And I'm afraid in most cases in my book that is way more important that the hugely unlikely prospect of somehow adversley effecting someone's "rights".

[Courtney Mil]

The trouble with Flying Lawyer's stance on discussion is that virtually EVERY "accident" whether that be in the air or in a car could possibly lead to a prosecution for some violation of law.
So that means following the above logic we can pretty well shut down PPRuNe and every other web forum as we would be not allowed to discuss incidents or accidents - any of them until both the AAIB report is out and the police/DPP have stated there are not going to prosecute: whether that was the pilot, the CAA, the maintenance or anyone else.

You could not be more wrong. FL's 'stance' that you refer to is mainly a legal one (and there is no point in arguing the rights and wrongs of the law with him, he is simply telling you how it is), but you will see that he also refers to the moral position. There are plenty of things to discuss on PPRuNe, if not speculating about a pilot's guilt in public is all you see in PPRuNe, then maybe go elsewhere.

I see no problem with discussing anything here, we can all choose which threads and fora to read. I stand by two points, in addition to the legal aspects:

First, an aircraft crashes with a pilot at the controls. His actions may or may not have had some influence on the outcome. In the absence of any other obvious causes, thoughts turn to the pilot screwing up. Rather than wait for the results of the forensic examination and the pilot's evidence (assuming he is able to give evidence) people with little understanding of the circumstances feel they can hide behind the anonymity of their user name and the fact that they are not actually confronting the pilot in question and announce all manner of conclusions - conclusions that may well turn out to be right, but that are completely inappropriate to declare in public at this stage. The foregoing is especially true if that 'conclusion' is posted on a forum that is known to the tabloids and may well be (often are) picked up and put into print. These 'conclusions' may also be seen by relatives and friends of people injured or killed in the crash or as a result thereof (that may include the pilot in question).

Second, I have to question the motives of people that play no active part in a forum until something bad happens and then turn up (this forum is a classic example) like circling vultures seeking out a corps to pick over. Just look back over the many pages of this thread for examples. Just look at members' posting history.

You cannot silence the public and take away their liberties... just ensure a fair trial and a verdict based on fair hearing, not what is or isn't in the public domain

Indeed not. But, contrary to seemingly popular beliefs, with liberties come responsibilities. Even freedom of speech has bounds in that you exercising your 'humin rites' may not infringe upon of those of others. As has been said before, if you draw conclusions here, especially those that imply the apportionment of blame, you know that thousands of people, including irresponsible journalists, will see them.

However it is human nature to speculate and draw conclusions, even early ones. It's also human nature to gossip and it's been happening since the dawn of time. Small town gossip has been taking place ahead of small town court cases for years. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

You speculate all you like and draw your conclusions - I know I certainly do. It is human nature for some people to gossip, others know when to talk to others and when to keep their thoughts to themselves. If you equate the irresistible urge to 'gossip' here, you are equating yourself with the very people you probably criticise for having loose tongues or worse. The human urge to 'gossip' is hardly a mature or reasoned argument for making libellous and unfounded statements here or anywhere else.

I have seen too many good aircrew blamed for aircraft incidents - think of your own examples. I have seen too many incidents where the suspicion immediately falls on the aircrew only later to find that a completely unexpected factor was the cause. I see people all the time professing how wonderful our pilots (military in most instances are, but the same is true for the airlines) right up until something goes wrong and then everything changes - see numerous threads here for a start - and folk are out on the streets demanding blood. The speculative, public apportionment of blame falls into the same category.

Now you all go ahead and be armchair quarterbacks. No one here will stop you.

[mrangryofwarlingham]

Would just observe that if someone was reading this thread, then it highly likely to me that they will read the relevant AAIB report when it comes out.....

So a little inconsistent to be concerned about jurors possibly reading this thread but to dismiss the possibility of the AAIB report being read.

[Courtney Mil]

Great thought, but the AAIB report may not necessarily be submitted as evidence in any case and the members of a jury do not generally know what case they will be called upon to judge before they get there. So, no, most jurors don't have time to read up on a case in advance.

I doubt more than a small percentage of the U.K. population will ever read the full AAIB report when they can get all they think they need to know from the Daily Mail. They will more likely be influenced by the almost daily presentation of "facts" in their newspapers without knowing where those "facts" came from.

[Mach Two]

Courtney,

Took me a while to get through your post #1029, but I get it. I don't care much about the legal aspects as they apply to posters on this thread although I agree with Flying Lawyer's position. Your take on the, what to call them, moral aspects is spot on. I doubt those concerned will pay much attention, but it was worth a shot.

TDPU this year?

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

There's video. There's radar data. There's common sense. There's freedom of speech to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Lawyers have their own agenda, and though pigs are unlikely to fly, lawyers are another matter.

[mrangryofwarlingham]

Courtney

Exactly. The AAIB report is no more likely to be submitted in evidence than the comments here on pprune. And your point re the daily mail emphasises what I am saying. If there is a small chance that a journalist will take posts from pprune and put them into a paper, given the public interest in the Shoreham accident there is a 100% chance that the AAIB report will appear in several daily nationals, and not just the daily mail.
So thank you for reinforcing my point that it is not consistent to argue that the content of pprune may be seen by a juror but that the content of the AAIB report will not.

[dagenham]

flying lawyer - would comment on here come under here say and be ignored?

what would it take to become subjudacy?

[Pontius Navigator]

Air sound, thank you, deleted.

I know I was slung in the deep end. The only written advice had been that by Mike Retallick based on his running the St Mawgan air show. Our second attempt was fortunately aborted thanks to Saddam Hussein.

[Just This Once...]

There's video. There's radar data. There's common sense. There's freedom of speech to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Lawyers have their own agenda, and though pigs are unlikely to fly, lawyers are another matter.

One hopes you are not questioning the integrity or motives of 'Flying Lawyer', as you would be far off the mark.

[Heathrow Harry]

," no, most jurors don't have time to read up on a case in advance"

My God - if the judge finds out you know anything about the case before it starts you won't be on the jury at all - and if you read about it during the trial you'll be jailed - it's happened a few times in 2015 when people have gone home at night and Googled the case and then spouted off in the Jury room......

[EESDL]

I would be interested to learn of what was indeed said or actioned by the DD after that JP display - as soon as I saw no 'nose up' I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach - and I have not flown JPs since the late 80s!

Is a summary of 'excursions' displayed on a Pigs Board at the end-of-season wash-up or is it quietly brushed under the table?

Who monitors the DD who is monitoring/authorising the airshow routine on the day?
From my airshow experience, the DD/CAA relationship has been a 'cosy' arrangement which I think is also being reviewed.

[Pittsextra]

Experts and fairness seem to be common themes here and all in the context of whom?

There are very many here who express derision upon those pilots who might hold a different view because they dare to post in a particular part of the forum. Yet we know that accidents are no respecters of either the time or type of flying a pilot has done in the past, in fact this accident is a case in point.

Specifically regarding this forum/thread blame the person Above the Clouds for starting it, blame the owners or administrators of the site for allowing the "wrong" person to subsequently post, register or view particular elements - but of course that isn't going to stop some else, somewhere else.

Back to experts and fairness. Sometimes these experts wish to confuse the non-experts of what they are seeing. Wish to suggest that things that look dodgy are actually normal, if only you really knew what you were looking at....

In the fullness of time things will be as clear as they are going to be, even if that is a "we don't really know". I hope the pilot in this particular case is left alone to get on with his life in peace because his burden is already more than it should be. No doubt that is equally so for the victims.

Yet for the victims I don't know how you square these two recent posts:

Flying Lawyer posted:

PPRuNe is widely known as, and often referred to in the media as, a 'professional pilots forum' I believe we have a corresponding responsibility to behave responsibly. More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum. Courtney Mil posted:

...people with little understanding of the circumstances feel they can hide behind the anonymity of their user name and the fact that they are not actually confronting the pilot in question and announce all manner of conclusions - conclusions that may well turn out to be right, but that are completely inappropriate to declare in public at this stage.
So at what point do the expert elements within PPRuNe speak up or speak out against dodgy practice? Do they never speak up? Only speak up to other they consider also to be as expert? Isn't this perhaps why this type of event happens?

As for anonymity isn't that exactly what is afforded to those "experts" who have perhaps failed not only the victims, included in that is the pilot himself.

What about if these conclusions that might turn out to be right aren't dealt with in the official AAIB report? Does that mean they are less right??

Of course there is also the review of aircraft display rules and regulation, should that wait for fear of allowing any conclusions to be drawn on current gaps?

[Pontius Navigator]

So at what point do the expert elements within PPRuNe speak up or speak out against dodgy practice? Do they never speak up? Only speak up to other they consider also to be as expert?

Probably the latter and in private.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, PN.

So at what point do the expert elements within PPRuNe speak up or speak out against dodgy practice? Do they never speak up? Only speak up to other they consider also to be as expert? Isn't this perhaps why this type of event happens?

When they know all the facts that facilitate a balanced judgement. Are you addressing your question to PPRuNe members in general or members of the Mil AV forum? The difference between the two is something I've been considering at length today.

The vast majority of military and ex-mil aircrew here understand that it takes time to uncover and understand the facts pertaining to any accident or incident. They understand that jumping to conclusions before being in possession of all the facts either leads to incorrect conclusions or leads to missing vital facts that could have contributed to future safe operations. They also understand the importance of not apportioning blame to individuals unless that can be done without reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, we see here a number of civilian pilots, many involved in the recreational flying world that want answer now and, lacking that, feel they are capable of providing their own. Now, just who wears the recreational flyer's hat cannot be determined due to a massive reluctance of PPRuNe members to declare their credentials. That, of course, is their choice.

When the facts are known, you can rest assured that the "expert elements" as you call them, will speak out without restraint - maybe not just here, maybe not even here; this, after all, is not where the improvement of flight safety is achieved and they owe no explanations to the chattering masses in that respect - that is the role of others. They will voice their considered opinions in a professional way.

[DaveUnwin]

"More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum."

Call me old fashioned, but personally I wouldn't attach any weight to anything posted anonymously on any internet forum.

[Pontius Navigator]

Dave U, far too categorical. Here yes maybe, but there are many instances where the internet can be the definitive source - anti-government spin for instance.

[Mach Two]

Call me old fashioned, but personally I wouldn't attach any weight to anything posted anonymously on any internet forum.

I could not agree with you more, Dave. Sadly, not everyone is as sensible or discerning about their sources of knowledge.

[OmegaV6]

DaveUnwin: Call me old fashioned, but personally I wouldn't attach any weight to anything posted anonymously on any internet forum.

Just shows you have a functioning braincell .. unlike many of those who firmly believe that "if its on the Internet it must be true" :(

[Flying Lawyer]

I've learnt a great deal from some of the PPRuNe forums over the years.

If you read a forum regularly, as I do this one, it isn't difficult to separate the wheat from the Walts, nor to spot people with a chip.

[DaveUnwin]

".....but there are many instances where the internet can be the definitive source..."
Good luck with that PN. I can never remember if it was Albert Einstein or Abraham Lincoln who is often quoted as saying "never believe anything you read on the internet." And that holds doubly true for anonymous posts in forums.

[Pontius Navigator]

But then you presume on anonymous.

Gainsey, RIP, pegged me by name based on booth content and style. We never npmet but we knew each other. BEagle and I have never met but we also know each other. This forum is not really populated by anonymous regulars.

[mopardave]

If you read a forum regularly, as I do this one, it isn't difficult to separate the wheat from the Walts, nor to spot people with a chip.

..........and then there are those who didn't measure up, but are just genuinely interested in what you gents got up to.

MD

[DaveUnwin]

Good point, well made PN. The point I was trying to make was that I wouldn't attach any weight to any comment made anonymously (in the true sense) on an internet forum. Of course I can work out who FL is, for example, and would treat a post by him with all due respect. But a truly anonymous one? I don't think so.
(BTW, Was the 'chip' comment aimed at me FL?)

[Pontius Navigator]

MD, then there are intelligent observers.

[Courtney Mil]

You make good point, Dave. We see plenty of people here that do use their anonymity to get away with all sorts of crap. Whilst I fully agree with PN's point, to the casual observer the real identity of regulars here is not always immediately obvious to the casual visitor and many people reinforce their mystique by keeping their profile blank.

When I read posts here by people I don't know I always glance at their profile to see who I'm reading - more often than not, nothing. So I assume they have no relevant credentials and weigh my opinion of their post accordingly.

Some members here are right to remain anonymous; serving military especially. I certainly used a less well known user name before I retired and did not include my real name as I do now. I remain suspicious of those here that I do not know if they disguise themselves for no apparent good reason other being able to post anything they want whilst hiding behind anonymity.

Sadly, of the thousands of people that visit this forum for various reasons, not all of them are that discerning or do not understand enough about the subject matter to make an informed judgement.

[Pontius Navigator]

DU, quite, your location alone lends you some credibility.

[mopardave]

MD, then there are intelligent observers.

Granted PN

MD

[Courtney Mil]

BTW, Was the 'chip' comment aimed at me FL?

I don't think so. There are a couple of posters that turn up here with massive chips.

[DaveUnwin]

I hope not CM - I certainly never intended to come across that I did. And you make several very valid points - I fully understand why someone still serving in the military would want to be anonymous, for example.

[LlamaFarmer]

We see plenty of people here that do use their anonymity to get away with all sorts of crap.

When I read posts here by people I don't know I always glance at their profile to see who I'm reading - more often than not, nothing. So I assume they have no relevant credentials and weigh my opinion of their post accordingly.

Some members here are right to remain anonymous; serving military especially. I remain suspicious of those here that I do not know if they disguise themselves for no apparent good reason other being able to post anything they want whilst hiding behind anonymity.


Some people may have a justified fear of reprisal for stating unfavourable things in a public domain. Stuff that if their company management were to see it and identify the person, may jeopardise their career progression in the company. And we all know how small the industry is, word can get around.

It might be perfectly reasonable for someone to withhold their identity, as you note yourself.



I remain anonymous on all the forums I am on... different usernames too as I'm not all that keen on anyone who can access an unsecure forum potentially working out who I am. Having said that I personally know members on most of those forums, and they know me personally and by username.
On here multiple members know who I am, however I don't like the idea that any old person could know, hence some level of anonymity. I'm sure most people are the same, with only a small minority remaining anonymous to be walts and trolls.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Disclaimer: Potential jurors in the UK should not read this, though surely you will hear these facts.

Straight from the AAIB report:
[The Hawker Hunter] commenced a gentle climbing right turn to 1,600 ft amsl, executing a Derry turn to the left and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl

[The pilot, who will remain nameless] held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard 3 category aerobatic manoeuvres.

The aircraft was taking part in an air display at Shoreham Airport during which it conducted a manoeuvre with both a vertical and rolling component, at the apex of which it was inverted. Following the subsequent descent, the aircraft did not achieve level flight before it struck the westbound carriageway of the A27.

Now for some simple logic.
1. The aircraft descended to 200 ft, though it was not authorized to descend below 500 ft during aerobatic maneuvers.

2. The aerobatic maneuver was deliberately performed over a busy carriageway.

3. It struck the carriageway, which was 500 feet below the minimum authorized altitude.

Draw your own conclusions. That's it. If you'd like to dispute any of those three points, have at it.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Ref. 'Experts'

What happens when 'experts' hold opposing opinion/viewpoints???

[LlamaFarmer]

1. The aircraft descended to 200 ft, though it was not authorized to descend below 500 ft during aerobatic maneuvers.

2. The aerobatic maneuver was deliberately performed over a busy carriageway.

3. It struck the carriageway, which was 500 feet below the minimum authorized altitude.

Draw your own conclusions. That's it. If you'd like to dispute any of those three points, have at it.

https://www.screenused.com/images/fewgood/DVD_VIDEO-39.jpg

"These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed."

[mrangryofwarlingham]

I dispute your number 2. The 1/4 clover was substantially not flown over any highway / road.
As to whether final stages were "deliberately" flown over the A27, where's your evidence? Is that was the planned sequence shows?

[clareprop]

FL- I intended no criticism of your experience or indeed, that of your colleagues. My point was that after very non-scientific research on previous 'case celebre' ranging from tube and bus bombers, street terrorists and child abuse accusations, it would seem that until charges have been made, it's open house on speculation in social media and traditional media reporting - often obtained from police sources as in the Cliff Richard case. To expect any jury to be 100% ignorant of such reporting would be hopeful in the extreme. In the case of Pprune, there is a simple remedy should conversation be deemed too speculative. As yet, Internet Brands have not seen fit to implement it.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

I dispute your number 2. The 1/4 clover was substantially not flown over any highway / road.
As to whether final stages were "deliberately" flown over the A27, where's your evidence? Is that was the planned sequence shows?

Witness marks on the road prove the crucial part of the maneuver occurred directly over the road. If I'm wrong about that, it will come as a great relief to a lot of people.

As to whether it was deliberate or not- are you serious? Do you think He Who Will Remain Nameless accidentally performed a 1/4 clover, or didn't know where he was when he commenced it?

[strake]

PrivtPilotRadarTech

1. Yes but why?

2. So your 'fact' is the pilot arbitrarily decided that the official display line, at 90 degrees to the road, wasn't good enough for him and so deliberately used the road instead?

3. Yes, it crashed there - again, why?

[LOMCEVAK]

PrivtPilotRadarTech,

It is permissible to commence an aerobatic manoeuvre from what is technically a 'flypast' from the minimum DA height for flypasts so long as the manoeuvre is not technically 'aerobatic' until passing the DA aerobatic minimum. Therefore, pulling up for a looping manoeuvre from straight and level at 200 ft agl would have been within the regulations so long as the pitch attitude was such that it would not have been considered 'aerobatic' before climbing through 500 ft agl. There are many definitions of what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre but in general 60 deg of pitch is probably the most restrictive. Therefore, in the case of the Shoreham accident the 200 ft agl entry height was above the pilot's flypast minimum so the relevant detail is what was the pitch attitude on climbing through 500 ft agl?

Although not relevant to this discussion, the same applies on recovering from looping manoeuvres. CAP 403 states "Descent below the approved aerobatic display height to the approved fly-by height is permitted once certain of capturing the aerobatic display height".

Please note that my comments above are based on being a current DAE for class G aircraft which includes the Hunter. If you require any further details regarding these aspects I suggest that you read CAP 403.

[mrangryofwarlingham]

The crucial part. How are you defining crucial ?

Are you saying you think AH was trying to put the hunter down on the road?

Regarding the deliberate performance of 1/4 clover, I did not suggest otherwise.
You're assertion is that it was deliberately performed over a highway.
My point to you is that it substantially wasn't. And something occurred, we know not yet what, but it could be down to the aircraft or the pilot, which meant the aircraft crashed. You have no evidence whatsoever that the pilot deliberately flew the whole manoevure over the A27 or that he deliberately chose the A27 as the crash site.

[Tashengurt]

How do witness marks on the road prove the manoeuvre was deliberately flown over it?
That the a/c crashed on the road is, obviously undisputed.

[jumpseater]

PPRT Witness marks on the road prove the crucial part of the manoeuvre occurred directly over the road. If I'm wrong about that, it will come as a great relief to a lot of people.

There are no doubt huge sighs of relief all round.

The witness marks on the road show the point the aircraft made contact with the surface, point 'X', they don't show the crucial part of the manoeuvre.

Crucial
Decisive or critical, especially in the success or failure of something.
pivotal, decisive, deciding, determining,
The 'crucial' moment of the flight occurred where all the factors, aircraft type, aircraft perf, technical status, display location, pilot, weather, human factors, men from mars etc etc, coincided to determine that the aircraft would contact the ground at point 'X'. Whether that crucial point occurred on the run in, on the way up, at the top, on the way down, how and why, isn't known (as far as 'we' know) yet.

[Courtney Mil]

Now for some simple logic.

1. The aircraft descended to 200 ft, though it was not authorized to descend below 500 ft during aerobatic maneuvers.

2. The aerobatic maneuver was deliberately performed over a busy carriageway.

3. It struck the carriageway, which was 500 feet below the minimum authorized altitude.

Draw your own conclusions. That's it. If you'd like to dispute any of those three points, have at it.

Now for some simple facts.

1. By joining the blood fest late and not bothering to read what has already been discussed and explained at length in this forum and more recently in this thread, you have neatly demonstrated the pitfalls of using a single reference without understanding the facts. 15 Sep 2015: "The 100'/500' minima are normal in DAs and as this was a vertical manouver, the pilot would expect to reach gate height for a vertical recovery by 500' ." 14 Sep 2015: "There is a miscomprehention around minimum fly by altitude and minimum aerobatic altitude. Convert to "agl" or "qfe" as you need. The run in was legal according to current regs and there is allowance for pulling up from there into a defined aerobatic manoeuvre." 14 Sep 2015: "The display regulations would allow a 100 foot fly past to pull up into an aerobatic manoeuvre and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the entry, provided the FDD, CAA or the pilot's DAE had not imposed additional restrictions." The physics of entering the manoeuvre from below exit height are both simple and previously explained. So your point 1 is not relevant unless other evidence is published to indicate otherwise.

2. There were local restrictions in place, but not displaying over the A27 was not one of them, as far as we know. Again diagrams of restrictions imposed by the FDD have been posted on this forum months ago. From your reference, there is no evidence to suggest that your point 2 contravened any DA or local restrictions.

3. Stating that an aircraft crashed below the display minimum height, whilst true, is not the point. The obvious question that is at the centre of the ongoing investigation is why the aircraft descended below the display minimum and ultimately struck the ground - mechanical/structural failure, human error or other factors yet to be determined.

Therefore, no conclusions to be drawn at this stage.

[Pittsextra]

LOMCEVAK posted: Therefore, pulling up for a looping manoeuvre from straight and level at 200 ft agl would have been within the regulations so long as the pitch attitude was such that it would not have been considered 'aerobatic' before climbing through 500 ft agl. There are many definitions of what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre but in general 60 deg of pitch is probably the most restrictive.

I don't take any issue with what you say but it does throw up a number of reasonably foreseeable issues.

Not least of which is how does the pilot accurately judge his pitch angle? Certainly not by looking straight ahead. So he has his head out looking at the wing tip and really just having a punt. Then he needs to look in at the Altimeter... Really? More likely its a timing and practice thing of pulling "this" quickly... Except not really the type to be doing a lot of practice in is it?

So one question is what was the plan and how was that factored into the build up and what were the abort points??

Does he throw it away if he does pull too quickly and achieves this visually judged 60deg pitch up at 300, 400, 450ft? Plus of course we must remember the actual figure being flown is a 1/4 clover with the rolling element on the up line. In the first place its slightly unnatural to be waiting until +60deg before commencing the roll but now we need to factor in positioning, because if we have started that too early or too late now we in an altogether different position from that which was planned...

Its not hard to see how the workload in the first half of this can ramp up. It may have been better to put the rolling element on the downline and indeed that is what he had done only a few weeks before at a prior airshow.

Finally what are those persons who have oversight, but are external to the aircraft, what are their visual cues for the on going health of the display?? Again what was the plan?

It is undoubted that the pilot did not deliberately intend to do anything dangerous or wrong and the suggestion that he did is utterly idiotic but you can see how it isn't hard for the best laid plans to go off track and what is the plan then? This debate could ultimately be more about the events in the build up than on the day.

Just a view and regardless of the precise cause of the accident worthy of debate.

[Pittsextra]

CM - sorry but this

The physics of entering the manoeuvre from below exit height are both simple and previously explained. So your point 1 is not relevant unless other evidence is published to indicate otherwise.

Is wrong. It is not a simple thing to judge and even less simple to repeat well and accurately. In fact without being horrid the act of rolling an aircraft accurately has been demonstrated with this pilot not to be simple.

By allowing yourself to judge things as "simple" isn't that exactly how we overlook, ignore and not plan for? How many smoking holes have resulted with that attitude?

[Pontius]

Starting the pull at 100' you'll be through 500' before you reach 60 degrees nose up, so a moot point really.

[Courtney Mil]

It is not a simple thing to judge and even less simple to repeat well and accurately.

And that is why displays are worked out and practiced in advance. Literally hundreds of display sequences include manoeuvres that have different entry and exit heights and speeds. The physics are simple, which is what you quote me as saying. The execution is more difficult, but a planned sequence has numerous pre-defined gates, not just for safety, but also to allow the aircrarft to arrive at the correct point in the sky at the right attitude and airspeed for the next part of the sequence.

Display flying requires a great deal of judgement, but flying a consistant sequence also requires the pilot to follow his plan. If you think that the pilot just makes it up on the day and thinks, "I'll start from a height below my exit height this time so I'll add a few knots" then you are mistaken and know even less about the subject than you previously stated and demonstrated.

To recap from earlier discussion, if you want to lower the entry height but maintain the same exit height, you must inclease the entry speed by a known amount - pre-determined when designing the display - adjust the pull on the way up. In the case of this sequence, you may have seen earlier that this manoeuvre was planned to flow from a low pass into a manoeuvre with a vertaical component, so was always planned with a lower entry height and was flown that way during practice, approval and numerous displays.

As your reply above takes my quote about physics and then refers purely to the judgement required I must conclude that you either didn't read what you quoted properly or you were just looking for something to argue with.

[LOMCEVAK]

Pittsextra,

Pontius is spot on. From the speeds at which looping manoeuvres are entered in aircraft such as the Hunter you do not have to worry about what pitch attitude you will be at following the first 300 ft of the pull up. My point was one that the pilot had not exceeded his DA minima, not that he had extra parameters that he had to monitor during the initial pull-up.

With respect to 1/4 clover type manoeuvres in an aircraft of the speed category of the Hunter, if you start as you suggest at less than 60 degrees nose up there will be a significant reduction in the apex height for a given g/pitch rate flown during the pull up; it also means that you will probably reach the apex not quite wings level or you will have to roll through more than 90 deg to achieve wings level. I have no experience of flying these manoeuvres in light aeroplanes and therefore if you do I defer to you knowledge in this category. However, in the category B, C and G aircraft that I display I frequently fly 1/4 clovers and I start to roll at about 80 deg nose up such that the roll is symmetrical about the vertical line. I think that this looks neater and it minimises the reduction in apex height.

Please note that my comment regarding 60 deg nose up as the definition of the start of an aerobatic manoeuvre is a worst case figure promulgated by some regulators; others use 90 deg whilst some are not prescriptive to that extent at all.

Finally, your public profile gives no clues as to your experience but, from your comments, I doubt that you have any fast jet display experience so perhaps it would be better to ask questions here, which will be politely answered, rather than making statements that are invalid.

[Pittsextra]

CM - no no I'm not trying to be smart with the words... I just read that you thought item 1 of a previous posters view was irrelevant, you used the term physics. Now of course given we are talking about an actual event that had to be actually flown I took it that you were making your reply relevant.

100ft to 500ft talking no time... Depends how quickly you pull and actually we can see from the video it takes time. Of course you could argue perspective of the camera but then you'd have to square that same argument for the people who oversee these things... From the ground.

I'd like to think we can agree that this system is less than perfect.

[jumpseater]

In fact without being horrid the act of rolling an aircraft accurately has been demonstrated with this pilot not to be simple.

What's the saying? one swallow doesn't make a summer. Your statement above is in fact being 'horrid' and potentially libellous. It (deliberately?) misses the point that the Pilot in question has previously won awards for aerobatic flying in competition, has flown close formation aerobatics (including rolls), and implies the way you've written it that the pilot has difficulty to adequately fly a roll. His previous experience indicates otherwise.

[Pittsextra]

LOM - a 1/4 clover flown the way you describe would seem to me specific to your class or type of aircraft. It wouldn't be a way to fly it (80deg nose up before rolling) in competition aerobatics, so i'm not sure how much practice or focus that gets. Is that technique something that is of focus?

The film I see it seems he starts rolling prior to your target of 80deg, you could use that same film to take a view on the rate of pitch up and height gain. Could you not?

[LOMCEVAK]

Pittsextra,

My post does say quite clearly that my technique refers to displaying specific categories of aircraft including Cat G (which covers the Hunter) and I did say that I have no experience of flying these manoeuvres in light aircraft. Also, competition aerobatics is not the same as display flying and so not really relevant here.

I made no comment on the attitude at which the roll was commenced in the accident manoeuvre. Again, I just stated my technique. The apparent angle at which the roll appears to commenced on a video recording may be influenced by camera position but without photogrammetry analysis it is difficult to be precise as to the angle. However, I am sure that you will agree that for a given pitch rate and airspeed during the pull-up for a 1/4 clover, the lower the pitch attitude on starting the roll then the lower will be the apex height; this is just geometry and not type specific.

[Flying Lawyer]

DaveUnwin
BTW, Was the 'chip' comment aimed at me FL?
No, certainly not.
It was just a general observation.

I've never served so know only about 10 people behind usernames in this forum. However, if one reads a forum regularly, I think it's possible to discern with reasonable accuracy which posters' contributions to various discussions merit closer consideration.
An example, chosen simply because he has posted this morning: I respected LOMCEVAK's contributions years before I got to know him in real life, and when his profile didn't disclose as much as it does now.

Looking at someone's previous posts can be very revealing, particularly in accident threads which always seem to bring all sorts out of the woodwork - not just in this forum.
In many instances it reveals that they have no relevant expertise or experience, but that doesn't deter them from sounding off.

mopardavethose just genuinely interested in what you gents got up to.
I'm in that category.

What puzzles me is why some in our category don't just read and learn, and ask questions where necessary, rather than posting worthless opinions and sometimes arguing with those who clearly have expertise and experience in the relevant field.

[Courtney Mil]

Very well said, FL! :ok::D

Does he throw it away if he does pull too quickly and achieves this visually judged 60deg pitch up at 300, 400, 450ft?

How do you think a Hunter is going to pitch over 60 degrees in less than 400 feet?

Once again you are throwing in more and more baseless and ill-informed points without ever coming back to your previous ones when they are shown to be incorrect.

For the benefit of those who may have missed it before, would you mind stating your Miltary, Hunter and Display experience?

[Pittsextra]

Yep if that's how you start the figure but I don't see it pitched to 60deg before it commences the rolling element of the figure.

[mopardave]

FL.......agreed. I owe you an apology.......neck wound back in!
MD

[Pontius Navigator]

FL- I intended no criticism of your experience or indeed, that of your colleagues. My point was that after very non-scientific research on previous 'case celebre' ranging from tube and bus bombers, street terrorists and child abuse accusations . . . . To expect any jury to be 100% ignorant of such reporting would be hopeful in the extremet.

100%, maybe, but only aware, maybe 10%.

It would be near 100% in the early days after an event but suggest for any given event you will find a huge percentage ignorant of any later developments. Some 'massive' media coverage can actually anaesthesise many potential jurors. You cite Cliff Richard. I remember his song Living Doll and Batchelor Boy but other than that I have no interest.

[LOMCEVAK]

Pittsextra,

Could you please post a link to the video that you have viewed to assess the pitch attitude at which the roll was commenced.

Your response to CM's first point is not an answer to his question and I am not clear about the point that you are trying to make. I am really mystified as to why you continue to be so argumentative in a discussion regarding subject matter (swept wing jet display flying) in which I suspect you have no experience. There are many aspects of aviation about which I know nothing and if I ever get drawn into discussions about them I very quickly hold my hand up, apologise and exit!

[Courtney Mil]

A quick post as it's half time.

Hang on, Pitts. You are posting just to make arguments that you then try to change.

You asked,

Does he throw it away if he does pull too quickly and achieves this visually judged 60deg pitch up at 300, 400, 450ft?

I asked you how a Hunter would reach 60 degrees of pitch in less than 400 feet so you come back with,

Yep if that's how you start the figure but I don't see it pitched to 60deg before it commences the rolling element of the figure.

I think you are confusing the relevance of pitch angle as a measure of aerobatic manoeuvre (thus minimum separation distance) with pitch angle to perform the manoeuvre.

Again, for the benefit of those who may have missed it before, would you mind stating your Military, Hunter and Display experience?

[squib66]

Petition
Ask Civil Aviation Authority to rethink their charges to the 2016 Airshow season (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628)

6,438 signatures at time of this posting

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, Squib. It's an interesting move by the CAA. All the talk of improving safety when all they seem to be doing is raising their charges.

ATC, yes, we've noticed.

[Mach Two]

PittsExtra, I wouldn't mind so much, but your attitude here is detracting from the discussion. I think, given your lack of credentials, you are boxing above your weight. I for one would be very happy if you stayed here, but with a little less of the attitude that you can talk authoritatively about aviation matters you appear not to grasp fully. Just tone it down a bit, answer questions and stop trying to prove your knowledge.

Following on from Lomcevak's point, I too would like to see the video that shows the pitch angle below 60 degrees whilst rolling. Thank you.

[JW411]

I really don't understand why some of you are giving PE a hard time. Those of us who have been posting on prune for some time are already well aware that he preceded the Wright Brothers by seven good years.

[Pittsextra]

Sorry gentlemen had some snacks and a sponge down in a corner....

It moves on a pace.

OK lets put down some ground here. I'm expressing a view, I don't claim to be an expert in anything but then this is a public global forum and actually I don't see what I've ever written on PPRuNe is so contentious.

Yes I've commented upon some accidents and actually those who seem to know my postings will see that I posted upon this one when I suggested that actually you could see things in the accident via the video. In fact I used the term 1/4 clover only to spend 4 or 5 pages getting flamed for saying so! At least we agree its a 1/4 clover now!

So to some points of reply and I'll retire to my corner. I accept the criticism and my confusion re my comments re: pitch and height. In post No.1070 my comments/questions to Lomcevak were generic, in that I was talking display flying in general given any rules / regulations are unlikely to be type specific. Unless they are and please direct me appropriately.

So CM in answer to your post 1086 sure you can be right. My reply re: the rolling element is that because the figure being flown is a 1/4 clover which has rolling and looping then it isn't only pitch angle that is relevant. However actually my view is that this blurring of when is an aerobatic figure relevant is not clear and I don't know where that is written. After all it really means that the bottom 59deg of the entry and exit of a loop is never aerobatic. My view is that that argument becomes weak if there is no clear break between maneauvers. But thats my view, happy to be pointed in the direction of something that clarifies.

I was using this video as a ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw75lBTZO2E

I think its rolling by 12secs. Again my view.

On the point re: angles & heights as reflected by Lomcevak in post 1078 no doubt angles and heights require more detailed analysis to be 100% but of course the people on the ground in supervision have no such equipment nor do they have time and so clearly any system needs to be unambiguous and able to be judged simply. Your system may work and be relevant for Cat G aircraft but of course there are other aircraft covered by the same umbrella/framework of rules. Or are they not?

I don't think I've hidden from any points? In fact actually there are many points I've asked that have been left hanging and whilst my skin is thick enough and to in reply to FLawyer. Yes I've commented upon some accidents although tell me what is your opinion on those that I have? What parts have irritated you so much?

I don't fly a mil. jet and I don't have time in a Hunter, there is nowhere I have said that I have. Although are we now saying that unless you do anything said is invalid? Does that apply to any accident? Anyone else commented upon an accident which involves a type they have no time on? PPRuNe would have some thin threads if they did. Crikey it would be pretty limiting to those reviewing the regulations for air displays wouldn't it!

[Mach Two]

Pitts,

Good. I'm glad you've decided to listen.

actually I don't see what I've ever written on PPRuNe is so contentious.

That is because you haven't been listening to what people here have been telling you for the past five months.

Now let's carry on better.

[Pittsextra]

Mach - fair enough. Just to clarify another thing and again if this isn't the same aircraft pilot happy to be told otherwise but here is the link to the film at Bray where the rolling element is on the down line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P2TV2HZUss

[LOMCEVAK]

Gents,

I think that I may be guilty of introducing a red herring by mentioning 60 deg of pitch for defining an aerobatic manoeuvre. I have done a bit more digging and actually the worst case is a FAA definition which states 60 deg of bank and 30 deg of pitch (with a few caveats); that is what must have prompted me a use the number 60 but incorrectly. The old military flying regs, JSP318 (happy days!) specified 90 deg of pitch or bank. I cannot find any actual numbers in CAP403 and am not actually aware of anything in the ANO (but if there is I would be interested to know). So let's not get hung up on hard numbers. Being pragmatic, there is no more risk in pulling up into a loop from a low height than there is from performing a wings level pass at the same height and, air display rules permitting, I usually pull up from my flypast minima and am quite content if someone does this during a DA renewal.

One item to consider when viewing the video clip that Pittsextra has linked to is that if you view a loop from directly abeam the aircraft at pull-up then by the time it is in the vertical you will view some of its topside and it may appear that it has rolled towards you. Therefore, from this aspect it may appear to have started rolling before it actually has. I am not saying that Pittsextra's judgement is incorrect or invalid, just that I would not actually put a figure on the pitch attitude based solely on a video from just that single aspect. Although not relevant here there is another visual illusion when viewing a loop head on in that the aircraft will appear to have a reduction in pitch rate when close to the vertical because the apparent length of the aircraft, the rate of change of which gives the visual cue of apparent pitch rate, is a function of sine pitch attitude and therefore even for a constant pitch rate the rate of change of apparent aircraft length is non-linear.

[Mach Two]

That is WV372 in the Bray video, but it is not the same sequence.

Lomcevak, very good point about the two visual illusions. And well explained.

[treadigraph]

There are many aspects of aviation about which I know nothing and if I ever get drawn into discussions about them I very quickly hold my hand up, apologise and exit!

Lomcevak, as always you are far too much the gentleman. :ok:

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

LOMCEVAK:
It is permissible to commence an aerobatic manoeuvre from what is technically a 'flypast' from the minimum DA height for flypasts so long as the manoeuvre is not technically 'aerobatic' until passing the DA aerobatic minimum. Therefore, pulling up for a looping manoeuvre from straight and level at 200 ft agl would have been within the regulations so long as the pitch attitude was such that it would not have been considered 'aerobatic' before climbing through 500 ft agl. There are many definitions of what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre but in general 60 deg of pitch is probably the most restrictive.

Thank you for the thoughtful rebuttal. I'm not an expert on aerobatics, though I have a lot of training and experience in safety, quality, and process control.

If I understand you correctly, a display pilot wishing to avoid busting the minimums would have to simultaneously monitor his changing altitude and pitch while commencing a maneuver, as opposed to simply starting the maneuver from a safe altitude and airspeed. Similarly, the Flying Display Director would need a protractor and some elaborate mechanism to determine if the minimums had been busted. And technically, a loop doesn't include the entry or the crucial exit, where the pitch is less than 60 degrees. (Odd. The entry and exit are scored for levelness in aerobatic competitions.)

May I say if true, that's insane?

Also, if I understand you correctly, it was permissible to cross that highway at 100 feet AGL. Silly me, I thought a "flypast" referred to flying along the runway, safely within the confines of the airfield. Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.

I wondered how a terrible tragedy like this could happen. Say no more, I've got it down to a one word explanation.

[Tourist]

Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.


If you apply your safety experience to the rest of life, how does it work? What about the billion cars that pass each other every hour of every day with 150MPH closing speeds mere feet apart on the roads? Is that insane? By comparison, 100ft seems positively risk averse....




If I understand you correctly, a display pilot wishing to avoid busting the minimums would have to simultaneously monitor his changing altitude and pitch while commencing a maneuver,


That would be true if it were physically/kinematically possible to pull the nose beyond whatever degrees nose up before reaching display height. I am not a Hunter pilot, but I strongly suspect it would not be at that speed.
The pilot will be pulling a g amount on the pull-up. That will give a fairly consistent curve.

Added to that, if he did indeed have to do that, then so what? Do you think that display pilots are not constantly monitoring many parameters whilst displaying? It's called being a pilot.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.



Could someone please advise the sane height for overflying highways?

It's just that I used to regularly fly over highways at an authorised height of 150'. Was the extra 50' sufficient to confer sanity, or was I unknowingly crazy all along?

Also, I still regularly overfly a busy 4-lane arterial at about 80' and descending. With about 300 passengers on board. Presumably this is completely bonkers?

[Courtney Mil]

Tourist is correct.

If I understand you correctly, a display pilot wishing to avoid busting the minimums would have to simultaneously monitor his changing altitude and pitch while commencing a maneuver, as opposed to simply starting the maneuver from a safe altitude and airspeed.

Now you're catching on, finally. Yes, it's something pilots do.

Also, if I understand you correctly, it was permissible to cross that highway at 100 feet AGL. Silly me, I thought a "flypast" referred to flying along the runway, safely within the confines of the airfield. Crossing a highway at 100 feet AGL is also insane from a safety perspective.

It would be a bit difficult to stay "safely within the confines of the airfield" at Shoreham - and most other airfields - in a Hunter. As for overflying the A27, aircraft do it all the time on the approach to 20 there - a lot of airfields that have main roads crossing close to the main runway. In this case the display axis crosses the road. Have you not looked at the display maps for Shoreham before pontificating about it?

[idle bystander]

Courtney:

You are being disingenuous. There is no comparison between overflying a busy main road (as anyone approaching Shoreham has to do 80% of the time), and pulling, what, 2-3g, out of a loop at over 200kts, 100ft, even 500ft, above a main arterial highway on a Saturday afternoon. That's where the insanity seems to come in.
It would be a bit difficult to stay "safely within the confines of the airfield" at Shoreham - and most other airfields - in a Hunter. As for overflying the A27, aircraft do it all the time on the approach to 20 there - a lot of airfields that have main roads crossing close to the main runway. In this case the display axis crosses the road. Have you not looked at the display maps for Shoreham before pontificating about it?

So, if what we saw (with the exception of the final seconds) was the PLANNED and APPROVED manoeuvre, it was unsafely executed, unsafely planned, and unsafely approved. The result was slaughter, which is why some people are quite angry about it.

[Tourist]

Courtney:

You are being disingenuous. There is no comparison between overflying a busy main road (as anyone approaching Shoreham has to do 80% of the time), and pulling, what, 2-3g, out of a loop at over 200kts, 100ft, even 500ft, above a main arterial highway on a Saturday afternoon. That's where the insanity seems to come in.


No, he is not.

There is every comparison.

Firstly, the 100ft pass was straight and level. Very low risk.
Secondly, even at "200kts" (your speed not mine) the energy in the hunter is infinitesimal compared to the energy in an airliner landing over a busy road.
Thirdly, risk is all about chance of something happening as well as effect if it does.
History shows that despite decades of this sort of thing happening, I believe this is the first time one has spanked into a road.

Even one in a million risks happen occasionally. That does not mean it is sane to try to remove one in a million chances.

Aviation is already safer than normal life. The drive to the airport is the dangerous bit it's just humans are awful at risk assessment.
You are an exceptional human.

[Courtney Mil]

idlebystander,

It was not my intention to be disingenuous, merely to demonstrate the position of the road relative to the 20 threashold means that it is overflwn at low altitude very frequently. As Tourist rightly points out risk is the combination of effect AND likelihood. Shoreham is home to private aircraft, a flying school, bis jets, helicopters, scheduled flights and pleasure flights totalling 57,000 annual movements in recent years (2014 figure). The frequency of aircraft landing over the road is far greater than overflights generated by the annual airshow, the future of which may be in doubt.

So when you say,

it was unsafely executed, unsafely planned, and unsafely approved

I do not believe that is correct. There is an element of risk, but it is not unsafe. Perhaps you are trying to use a single incident to prove a broader statistical probability - stats don't work like that.

A quick glance at the fixed wing pattern below (there is also a helo pattern to superimpose on that) gives an idea of just how crowded the area around the airfield really is. It's not just a road at the end of the runway. But before jumping to the conclusion that it is "unsafe" for displays or even to remain an operating airfield, you need to look at the entire aviation business in the UK (probably in very many countries) and consider how many other airfields are similar to this.

Mostly, the safety record is extremely good and the risks exceptionally well managed. Whatever way you look at it, the additional risk of the airshow is not terribly significant compared to daily operations. I certainly see no evidence that the planning, approval and execution were "unsafe".


http://www.flybrighton.com/rsimages/pilots-cct-fixedwing2004.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

Just looking at the airfield map shows that the display line used is the least risk option. There are few dwellings on the 02/20 line, to the NE is the Adour and a potential escape route. It is obvious looking at the 02 line that it was extremely bad luck hitting the road.

On that map, what was the actual flight path to the impact point. Is it possible to mark the track and IP on that map?

[Courtney Mil]

PN,

The BBC produced this graphic soon after the crash, viewed from the northish.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/5EB9/production/_85194242_shoreham_loop_detail_air_crash_624_v4.jpg

Someone (American by the looks of it) later added some more lines - BEFORE ANYONE STARTS TRYING TO USE THIS GRAPHIC TO DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THE MANOEUVRE WAS EXECUTED, THIS IS NOT BASED ON ANY SCIENTIFIC OR FORENSIC EVIDENCE - IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF AN ASSUMPTION.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/ththomason/Shoreham%20Crash%20Rev%20A_zpsr9zyclx3.jpg

[Nige321]

Looking at the graphic, why didn't he simply bank right onto the display line. The looping manoeuvre was well away from the spectators...

[Pontius Navigator]

So, without doubt, the least risky display line.

The only obvious way to reduce risk further would be traffic lights. Considering other airfields I know with traffic lights, the road in each case runs along the perimeter fence. Other roads where the aircraft height would be about 200 feet do not have lights.

In the case of Shoreham the road is sufficiently far from the airfield such that lights could not be justified.

[Nige321]

From behind the point marked 'Entry' forget the loop/coverleaf, just bank right, and straight down the display line...

[Courtney Mil]

I think he means why didn't he just turn right a bit rather than fly a modified quarter clover, PN.

Answer: because it wouldn't be much of a display if he just flew turns, I guess. I see your point about it being away from the crowd, but still visible there.

[Nige321]

Courtney Mil

That's correct. It just seems like the loop/cloverleaf was more for the pilot's benefit than the crowd. Certainly if you ask any keen airshow photographer they'd prefer two straight passes to one loop...

Was there a pre-planned sequence...?

[Courtney Mil]

The display has to be planned and the plan approved before it can be performed, Nige. It's discussed at length earlier in this thread, if you're interested.

[BEagle]

Just after mid-day UTC in August there'd by a very bright sun in the pilot's face on that pull-up heading, would there not?

[LOMCEVAK]

PPRT,

Re your post #1097. My previous points to which you refer regarding entry height related purely to the vertical plane and I made no reference to Shoreham specifically nor crossing roads. FYI, I fly frequently at Air Shows at one airfield that has major roads close to two of its sides and the minimum heights for overflight are always specifically briefed and closely monitored by the Flying Control Committee. Also, please note that in my post prior to yours I had said that my comments on 60 deg pitch were not factually correct and that there are, to my knowledge, no pitch or roll attitude values quoted that define aerobatic manoeuvres flown in accordance with CAP403.

To you and all on this thread, there seems to be a great interest (almost obsession) in the practice and regulatory aspects of entering looping manoeuvres from flypast minima. For those of us who display under CAP403 this is totally normal, as is the permitted flying down to flypast minima once the aerobatic minima has been captured. So let us put this into the context of this discussion (although not specifically related to Shoreham):

Much of the discussion has been on regulations which, in this age of wanting a regulation to cover every eventuality, is hardly surprising. But why do we have/need regulations? In my opinion, it is to establish a considered framework that enhances safety. BUT ... there will ALWAYS be a requirement for pilots to exercise sound judgement and common sense, qualities that were once called 'airmanship', a word which nowadays is used far too infrequently. The same applies to Flying Display Directors and Flying Control Committees. You can follow regulations and be unsafe or break them and be safe (although I am not condoning this latter scenario). With respect to loop entry heights and minimum heights on recovery, the manoeuvre must be flown safely. During the pull-up, a FDD or FCC member will have the expertise to assess this visually. Any suggestion that optical devices are needed to assess the pitch attitude on passing the aerobatic minimum height are fatuous and would add nothing to safety.

Regulatory numbers are not everything, just part of a safety culture. Sound judgement and common sense are still essential as well as regulations. Let us not forget that.

[LOMCEVAK]

BEagle,

You are correct and the almanac shows that at that time and latitude the sun elevation angle was about 70 deg.

[LlamaFarmer]

Secondly, even at "200kts" (your speed not mine) the energy in the hunter is infinitesimal compared to the energy in an airliner landing over a busy road

What kind of energy? Kinetic energy is 1/2 MV^2


Very rough ballpark figures give a fairly small airliner on approach more than double the energy.


Hunter
200kts @ 10T = 53,045 kJ

A320/B737
130kts @ 50T = 112,225 kJ

[Heliport]

Nige321It just seems like the loop/cloverleaf was more for the pilot's benefit than the crowd.
What a curious suggestion.

Certainly if you ask any keen airshow photographer they'd prefer two straight passes to one loop...
Possibly, but most airshow spectators are not keen airshow photographers.
They enjoy seeing aircraft performing aerobatics and, unless performed at low level, or it is an unusual aircraft, straight & level flypasts are the least interesting.

[Cows getting bigger]

I suppose it will all come down to the law and interpretation of the following:

137 Endangering safety of an aircraft
A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

138 Endangering safety of any person or property
A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

Note: Those bits of the ANO do not exclusively apply to aircraft commanders.

[Tourist]

What kind of energy? Kinetic energy is 1/2 MV^2


Very rough ballpark figures give a fairly small airliner on approach more than double the energy.


Hunter
200kts @ 10T = 53,045 kJ

A320/B737
130kts @ 50T = 112,225 kJ

Yes, that's my point.

Just to clarify further.

A tiny fast jet flying straight and level over a busy road delivers less energy to the impact than an airliner, therefore it is no more insane to allow jets to cross roads or buildings at low level than airliners on approach.

[Courtney Mil]

Tourist,

Actually, the mass of the Hunter might be more like 8 tonnes, so its energy is even less. As you indicate, the Hunter over the A27 has less energy than a widebody flying into Heathrow.

CGB,

Why are we back to quoting rules and orders again? We did this months ago. Is this a resurection of the search for someone to blame and hang out to dry? If not, what is the rules quote for?

Even the AAIB's investigation isn't complete yet. So where are you going with this, Cows getting bigger?

[Nige321]

It just seems like the loop/cloverleaf was more for the pilot's benefit than the crowd.

What a curious suggestion.

Why?
The manoeuvre was performed about half a mile to the north of crowd centre... Too far away for the (minority) photographers. I'd rather have seen the Hunter run straight in for a fast level or curved fast flypast, than a distant loop/clover...

[Courtney Mil]

Nige,

You seem to be criticising Andy's sequence on asthetic grounds now, which I have to say is a new one in this thread. Given that there is a possibility that he won't be flying it again anytime soon, I wouldn't worry about it just now.

Perhaps civilan display design is a topic for a new thread on the appropriate civvi flying fora.

[Tourist]

Why?
The manoeuvre was performed about half a mile to the north of crowd centre... Too far away for the (minority) photographers. I'd rather have seen the Hunter run straight in for a fast level or curved fast flypast, than a distant loop/clover...

You don't display for the spotters. You display for the kids and families who love to watch loops and rolls.

Personally I always find the guys with camera bags/patches/ovies/notebooks creepy.

[Nige321]

Sorry, not in the slightest. What I'm getting at stems from the graphic of the loop/clover, and my original comment of 'if only he'd banked right onto the display line'

Could he have simply banked right and run down the display line?
Was the clover part of the pre-planned sequence, or an impromptu addition to the sequence?
Or don't we know?

[Courtney Mil]

Like I said before, Nige, the sequence is pre-planned and approved. They do not just pitch up at a dislplay and do impromtu shows.

[Tourist]

Could he have simply banked right and run down the display line?


In the same way that all displaying aircraft could just turn up and land, yes he could, but it would not really be a display.

Lots of aircraft up close to photograph though....

[Dominator2]

Tourist,

What if the 9 tonne fast jet is doing 400kts?

Courtney,

You must admit, wrong manoeuvre at wrong location.

There is never a good reason for crossing a busy A Class road at 100ft agl/400kts. Either fly higher or get the road temporarily closed.

[Courtney Mil]

That's one for the CAA and the lawyers, Dominator. Not something I have the least qualification to talk about, I'm afraid. What I can tell you is that there are lots of display venues around the world that involve main roads and built-up areas: Farnborough springs to mind. But like I say, I can explain technical and flying stuff, not so much the legal aspects and what you may wish to see changed.

I'm not sure which of my posts you're refering to, but I don't see it as the wrong manoeuvre. Did you make the same comment in June when the same manoeuvre was flown successfully over a different road?

[Cows getting bigger]

Courtney, I guess I'm going in a direction that Flying Lawyer hinted at the other day. Personally, I'm not in the mood for a public flogging but I've been kicking around aviation long enough to know that someone, somewhere will end-up facing the bench. In today's, safety-conscious society, accidents don't 'just happen'.

[LlamaFarmer]

Yes, that's my point.

Just to clarify further.

A tiny fast jet flying straight and level over a busy road delivers less energy to the impact than an airliner, therefore it is no more insane to allow jets to cross roads or buildings at low level than airliners on approach.


Ah I thought you were implying the jet would have more energy than an airliner would. Disregard.

[Tourist]

Tourist,

What if the 9 tonne fast jet is doing 400kts?

Courtney,

You must admit, wrong manoeuvre at wrong location.

There is never a good reason for crossing a busy A Class road at 100ft agl/400kts. Either fly higher or get the road temporarily closed.

Ok

1/2mv2 says kinetic energy of 9000kg Hunter at 400 kts is.......erm....
189112500J
....a lot less than a 394000Kg A380 at 150kts!

The V squared makes a significant difference, but not enough to make a Hunter impact even in the same ballpark as a big airliner such as make approaches over roads and houses at less than 100ft all over the world every day.

...plus of course the A380 brings lots of extra warm bodies to any collision with hard stuff.

.....plus of course huge numbers of airliners have in fact crashed on short finals over the years, so the risk is very real, rather than the once in 50yrs for the hunter crash.

The speed is irrelevant, the manoeuvre less so.

[LOMCEVAK]

The maths is fascinating but let's keep this in context; how many Joules does it take to crush a car when in a 3 deg descent?!

[Tourist]

The maths is fascinating but let's keep this in context; how many Joules does it take to crush a car when in a 3 deg descent?!

I am not arguing whether there is plenty of energy to crush a car. Obviously there is more than enough in both cases.

I am merely pointing out that flying straight and level at 400Kts and 100ft across a road is less "insane" than the continuous stream of airliners that approach Heathrow and many other airports around the world across busy roads and houses despite aviation's long history of final approach crashes.

Hysterical ravings about safety are the thing that needs to be kept in context.

[Flying Lawyer]

Cgb
I guess I'm going in a direction that Flying Lawyer hinted at the other day.

I expressed concern that anyone here thinks it appropriate or fair to criticise the pilot on an open public forum when he is still at risk of being prosecuted.
We know that there is an ongoing police investigation which might lead to a prosecution.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I was not suggesting that there would, or should, be a prosecution.

Unlike some here, I think it better to wait until all the facts, or all facts that can be established, are known before forming an opinion.
Further, and importantly, the pilot's account of what happened is not yet known - assuming that he is able to recall the details. It is by no means unusual for someone who has gone through such a traumatic experience not to be able to recall.

[LlamaFarmer]

Further, and importantly, the pilot's account of what happened is not yet known - assuming that he is able to recall the details. It is by no means unusual for someone who has gone through such a traumatic experience not to be able to recall.

Given the injuries and duration of induced coma, I'm gonna suggest he can't remember a thing.


And given the limited medical knowledge I have, I would suggest that anything he is able to recall would be inadmissible in a court of law anyway.

[Courtney Mil]

We shall only know any of that when the time is ripe. Every case is different.

[LOMCEVAK]

Tourist,

My last comment was made somewhat tongue in cheek so apologies if it came across otherwise.

One important aspect to take into account with respect to flying over roads, houses etc is that it is actually the flightpath vector of the aircraft that is important. If an aircraft in level flight and with forward speed is going to crash, the point of impact will most certainly not be directly underneath it, irrespective of its height. Therefore, if an aircraft overflies a congested area with a level or shallow flightpath angle, the probability of hitting that area is low. However, steep flightpath angles, such as those that occur during a loop, do present a significant risk of impact with what is directly underneath the aircraft if the manoeuvre deviates excessively from the norm.

The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers. These considerations are what often dictate the restrictions imposed at air displays. Therefore, whilst the biggest risk of an aircraft crashing on a road may be the approach case, low and fast overflight of traffic may well be a greater cause of road traffic accidents. I accept that this discussion mostly is not relevant to Shoreham but since we have been discussing safety issues related to the overflight of roads I thought that it was worth raising.

[BEagle]

Lomcovák wrote:

The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers.

Indeed. Whereas 20 years ago the sight and sound of low flying military aircraft was commonplace to many motorists, nowadays it's a rarity.

Back in Summer 1991, I was driving home south on the M6 one Sunday morning when there was a sudden loud noise overhead - it was the BWoS de Havilland Mosquito on its way to an air show. What a wonderful sight/sound - but rather a silly idea to fly at low level near a major motorway, surely? Thankfully it was very quiet at the time...

[idle bystander]

Tourist, CM:
I am merely pointing out that flying straight and level at 400Kts and 100ft across a road is less "insane" than the continuous stream of airliners that approach Heathrow and many other airports around the world across busy roads and houses despite aviation's long history of final approach crashes.

I think (hope) that we are at cross purposes. You seem to think that I think that the initial manoeuvre, as he arrived, was unsafe. I am not referring to that part of the display at all. Indeed, I can see that an arrival like that, leading into a pull up and ¼ clover (whatever, there seems to have been argument about terminology, and I'm not competent to enter that discussion) is nicely dramatic but safe and shows off the aircraft in just the way the public want. Crossing the A27 at this point is not especially dangerous - I think there are road signs warning drivers of low flying aircraft.

My comment was addressing the rest of the manoeuvre. From the moment the roll started on the upward leg he is is changing the axis of the display with the inevitable result that the highest energy part of the manoeuvre would take place low over a busy arterial road. If he had been, as you put it, "flying straight and level at 400Kts and 100ft across a road", there would have been no accident, 11 people would still be alive and we could all be getting worked up about some other incident.

My point is that if this geometry was planned, briefed and approved, then it was unsafe and there are lots of people whose job it was to prevent it going wrong. The buck most certainly does not stop with the pilot.

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, OK, Idle Bystander. See if you can find a few display sequence diagrams and then superimpose them on a selection of airfields. As I mentioned before, Farnborough is an interesting and famous case. Either that or next time you go to an Airshow, have a look at what's underneath the manoeuvres.

Remember that the manoeuvre in question was performed where it was and in the orientation it was because of the requirement to fit between a number of avoidance areas. Without those this could have been a lot worse - or may not have happened at all.

There often isn't a lot of choice. Well, maybe one. But I don't believe that's called for.

[Above The Clouds]

My comment was addressing the rest of the manoeuvre. From the moment the roll started on the upward leg he is is changing the axis of the display with the inevitable result that the highest energy part of the manoeuvre would take place low over a busy arterial road.

So what would happened if the vertical portion of the performed manoeuvre commenced abeam the centre of the crowd line.

[LlamaFarmer]

So what would happened if the vertical portion of the performed manoeuvre commenced abeam the centre of the crowd line.

Would he have hit the ground? :hmm:

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

There has been plenty of discussion, and involving the ECHR, whether media speculation about potential proceedings or just active proceedings should be curtailed and strict liability imposed for contempt of court.
The upshot was that strict liability curtailing the publication of documents should generally be imposed in respect of active proceedings only.
I am not aware in the current case that proceedings are "active".

In the event there were to be active proceedings, I doubt very much that some of the more pejorative and uninformed posts on this forum would find themselves being used in those proceedings.

So whilst one might have the view that some posts here push the limits of decency, the law does little to deter such posts.

[Above The Clouds]

LlamaFarmer
Would he have hit the ground?

And where do you think the aircraft may have hit the ground, possibly behind the crowd line ? as stated by CM the manoeuvre was conducted where it was for a reason.


Courtney Mil
Remember that the manoeuvre in question was performed where it was and in the orientation it was because of the requirement to fit between a number of avoidance areas. Without those this could have been a lot worse - or may not have happened at all.

[Flying Lawyer]

D SQDRN 97th IOTCIn the event there were to be active proceedings, I doubt very much that some of the more pejorative and uninformed posts on this forum would find themselves being used in those proceedings. Doubt very much?
There are no circumstances in which any posts from this or any other forum could be used in legal proceedings. That is not the risk about which I expressed concern.
So whilst one might have the view that some posts here push the limits of decency, the law does little to deter such posts.Little?
There are currently no active proceedings so, currently, there is no reason in law that such posts should not be made/published nor quoted in the press. That was not my point.
The legal position would change if legal proceedings were to be commenced. ie If the pilot was to be arrested or charged.
(I agree broadly with your reference to decency except that I consider that several posts have gone way beyond the limits of decency.)

----------

If anyone is interested, I gave the advice below to PPRuNe Admin in the days when I used to help behind the scenes with legal matters. It relates to active proceedings.

In the UK, the press are entitled to report evidence given by witnesses (factual and expert) but they are not permitted to comment upon it, nor to express opinions about the guilt/innocence of the defendant.
I'd be surprised if the rules are significantly different in other developed jurisdictions.

Contempt of Court Act 1981

Sections 1 and 2 create a strict liability rule which makes it a contempt of court to publish anything to the public which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, even if there is no intent to cause such prejudice.
Ignorance of the law (or, where applicable, the existence of a specific reporting restriction or its terms) is no defence.

The strict liability rule applies to all publications, which is defined very widely as including “any speech, writing, or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large”.
Accordingly the strict liability rule is relevant not only to newspapers and broadcasters but also to online media and individual users of social media websites.

The strict liability applies once proceedings are active, which means that the relevant initial step must have been taken, such as placing a suspect under arrest, or charging him/her.

Whether or not proceedings for contempt of court could be successfully brought against the site owners should, in my opinion, be a secondary consideration; fairness to someone on trial is far more important.

Given the name of this website, I think we have a particular responsibility in aviation cases. Casual readers and journalists often assume that people who post here are professional pilots. As we know, many are not - and even those who are sometimes post nonsense.

If this site is an accurate reflection of the aviation industry then pilots are very quick (far too quick IMHO) to criticise/blame fellow pilots - and to pontificate about what the pilot or crew concerned should/should not have done. (Contrary to popular belief, that unfortunate tendency is shared by lawyers.)
eg Speculation following an accident is almost invariably critical of the pilot(s) involved.
There is never a shortage of self-righteous posters who say a pilot should lose his licence, never be allowed to fly again etc etc.

There is too often an unfortunate tendency to focus upon the potential consequences for contributors/PPRuNe rather than upon the potentially very damaging consequences (legal or other) for people who have been criticised/pilloried on a public website.
Not using someone's name is irrelevant if he/she can readily be identified from the context.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

LOMCEVAK:
steep flightpath angles, such as those that occur during a loop, do present a significant risk of impact with what is directly underneath the aircraft if the manoeuvre deviates excessively from the norm.

The problem with flying low and fast over roads, populated areas etc is that the sudden noise may induce accidents or trauma for those overflown and, in the case of roads, provides a distinct distraction to drivers. These considerations are what often dictate the restrictions imposed at air displays.

You get it. Suppose the Hunter had cleared the road at 100 feet AGL, thus meeting the minimums (as I understand them). The people below would have seen a jet diving on them at hundreds of knots, and heard the roar of the engine at full power less than 100 feet above their heads. With the nose high, I wouldn't be surprised if jet blast would be a factor. That's insane. People could have been killed by panicked drivers.

I gather some of you can't grasp how this is very different from routine landings at airports. I greatly doubt jets are passing 100 feet over roads like the A27, but if they are, they aren't diving at full power.

[Courtney Mil]

PrivtPilotRadarTech,

Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up now. There may be one small element in there that could have one foot in the realm of the possible. But for the most part, that is magnificent juvenile sensationalism.

The people below would have seen a jet diving on them at hundreds of knots, and heard the roar of the engine at full power less than 100 feet above their heads. With the nose high, I wouldn't be surprised if jet blast would be a factor. That's insane. People could have been killed by panicked drivers.

It's years since I saw Airplane, but that's just bought it all back so I thank you for that.

I greatly doubt jets are passing 100 feet over roads like the A27

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/29/article-2316468-1989E4B9000005DC-741_468x311.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02023/heathrow_2023288b.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/02/article-0-00A2036000000578-178_468x314.jpg

And this one is just for fun...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/aa/11/08/aa1108475eb7ec63c759b74e9ead0a43.jpg

[Heliport]

I thought You get it.was the funniest bit.

PrivtPilot to LOMCEVAK. :) :rolleyes:

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Courtney Mil:
Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up now. There may be one small element in there that could have one foot in the realm of the possible. But for the most part, that is magnificent juvenile sensationalism.

I carefully described what happened on the A27, shifting it to 100' AGL. Which element is not what actually happened?
1. The people below would have seen a jet diving on them at hundreds of knots

2. and heard the roar of the engine at full power less than 100 feet above their heads.

3. With the nose high

Which of your photos shows shows an aircraft at or below 100' AGL, over traffic- the last one, where the traffic has been stopped? And do you figure that aircraft was pulling out of a loop at the time?

Thanks for making my point. Sorry, mate, you're just making stuff up.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

FL

Some of those you encourage not to be critical of the pilot on this forum may have little genuine interest in aviation. Some might even be journalists. As laudable as your sentiments are, and they are shared by many on this forum including me, the behaviour of the minority will not change.
To repeat...there are no active proceedings, the law does little to deter such posts.

CM

I would disengage with PPRT. I see a wind up merchant.....

[Flying Lawyer]

Until there are active proceedings, the law does nothing (not little) to prevent such posts.
I have not suggested that it does.

[Jwscud]

Would one of the display types here be willing to go into the relationship between DA holders and their DAEs? Do they stay in touch and discuss things regularly through the season? I get the impression that it's very much a mentor/mentee type relationship with the DAE there to help as much as possible?

It seems the civvy relationship is rather different from the more formal military authorisation process. Apart from the timeless "bar chat" (where most of us have learned as much as from formal instruction) is there any way for passing on lessons and gotchas that colleagues have encountered on the same type?

[Pittsextra]

This question of height has taken up pages and pages of what each of us think is sensible. That looses the point because there is and will be a real answer. It can not be ambiguous, neither should it be ambiguous as to the reasons for these prescribed heights - regardless to what individuals may think of them.

It might irritate some to be questioned but when the AAIB published their bulletin of Sept 4 2015. It is that report that has generated the headlines in the press that relate to heights and the subsequent comments both online and off it. When the AAIB say:-

and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about45º. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre...

For those concerned with fairness what has stopped anyone clarifying that action? Its Feb 2016. That is 6 months since that information was released and yet the background and further clarity of this should have been possible back in Sept 15 shouldn't it? After all when a subsequent document questioned the aircraft permit a press release came from the CAA within 24hrs.

CAP403 was in its 13th edition at the time of the accident and so it is way beyond a "first draft". Therefore something so fundamental as definitions of heights and manoeuvres should have common understanding. Meaning when the relevant item under CAP403 is consistent, getting a DA under the guidance and subsequent mentoring of one DAE should also be consistent with every other DAE.

Asking those questions doesn't seem pejorative, unfair or indecent; that all seems common sense and entirely consistent to other areas of aviation that dictate what we can and can not do in order that firstly we stay safe, others stay safe, we do not break the law and our insurance might remain valid.

Personally the law and its consequences as it may apply to anyone involved here are less interesting than understanding the thinking behind the wider process of what is and is not accepted and who or what takes precedence. Asking questions on a "professional pilots" forum seems also to be a sensible thing to do.

Thanks.

[DaveUnwin]

"Some might even be journalists."

I don't want to alarm you D SQD, but I have a strong suspicion that you might be right.....

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that not only might some of these 'journalists' be sympathetic, but that they might actually have done a bit of flying?

FL - apologies if I misconstrued your earlier post - I'm just very sceptical about anything you read on here. Yes, it is usually possible to "sort the wheat from the Walts" (great phrase) but I read another thread recently where a similar topic was discussed. One poster related a tale about another site, where someone who purported to be an experienced 747 captain made regular and informative posts, which both educated and entertained. Then they made a fundamental error - and it turned out to be a 12-year kid! FWIW, I strongly suspect that several posters on this thread have never flown any type of aircraft, and it is quite possible that the reason why they have never flown any type of aircraft, is because they're not old enough!

[Courtney Mil]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that not only might some of these 'journalists' be sympathetic, but that they might actually have done a bit of flying?

Indeed, some are; we have a regular here who is most certainly a very good ambassador for responsible, well-informed journalism. Unfortunately, it only takes one or two less responsible hacks who come here looking for a quick quote or opinion (taken out of context and with little understanding) for an article to sway and misinform their readers - especially when the topic is emotive and lends itself to a bit of creative sensationalism in the creation of shocking, fury, outrage headlines.

[Phil_R]

Point of order: I suspect only one of those photos (of the Typhoon) unequivocally shows an aircraft at less than a hundred feet. Lenses and angles and things intervene here.

P

[Courtney Mil]

Point of order? They're just a couple of illustrations provided with very little effort to reseach to show that aircraft do fly low over people near airports in response to,"I greatly doubt jets are passing 100 feet over roads like the A27."

Lenses and angles and things intervene here.

Which is why we treat amateur video clips of incidents with caution and resist the temptation to draw too many conclusions from them.

[Pittsextra]

Before we get too sophisticated with our thinking re: lens and angles. What metric is used for oversight? Isn't it the case that an FDD is doing nothing more than using his eyes in combination with experience and the framework of regulation to take a view?

In which case one assumes the entry to the accident figure was judged to be OK and that viewpoint is able to be explained? Therefore the height argument can be closed?

[Tourist]

Therefore the height argument can be closed?

What exactly is your height argument/question?

What are you suggesting?

[Tourist]

Before we get too sophisticated with our thinking re: lens and angles. What metric is used for oversight? Isn't it the case that an FDD is doing nothing more than using his eyes in combination with experience and the framework of regulation to take a view?


It is not quite so simple, and more than one pair of eyes is used, but essentially yes.

This is not unreasonable.

Eyes are very different from cameras, and have a far wider field of view enabling better SA of what is going on.

[Courtney Mil]

Quote:
"and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about45º. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre..."

For those concerned with fairness what has stopped anyone clarifying that action?It's a stement of fact. I can't see what clarification you think "anyone" should have given or why they would need to.

As for measuring separation distance, I gather you would like to see heightfinding radars installed at every airshow with a team of trained personnel to monitor every display. A very practical and worthwhile idea. By the same token, let's have speed cameras covering every part of every road in Britain and an army of analysts - it is, after all the only way to be absolutely certain that no one ever drives too fast.

[Pittsextra]

What are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting that this shouldn't be a point of debate at all in Feb 2016.

I'd have thought that when the Sept 2015 AAIB bulletin printed some numbers that got turned into headlines that someone from the CAA, BADA or individuals involved with delegated authority could have put those numbers into some sort of context.

I've not seen that done to date. Why? Perhaps an aviation journalist could ask the question of the relevant body/person and publish a clear picture in a magazine? That would be value add wouldn't it?

It seems a little unfair to let a pilot dangle for 6 months under the cloud of these numbers if all was deemed to be well.

It is not quite so simple, and more than one pair of eyes is used, but essentially yes.

This is not unreasonable.

I personally would totally agree with that. It is perfectly reasonable it just seems to date nobody who had that authority feels it appropriate or has enough confidence to comment, when in other matters they have been very quick indeed.

[Pittsextra]

It's a stement of fact. I can't see what clarification you think "anyone" should have given or why they would need to.


I find clarification is needed because it led to these headlines:-

Shoreham Air Show plane crash: Pilot was too low, official report reveals - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11844829/Shoreham-Air-Show-plane-crash-Pilot-was-too-low-official-report-reveals.html)

Which we are saying is untrue and I'd have thought that various bodies involved would like to correct that. Why not? If Flying Lawyer (or anyone else) has any beef with unfairness then those who have the knowledge and have not spoken up are the worse offenders are they not?

[Courtney Mil]

You haven't been paying attention. Both the DT and the AAIB are saying the manoeuvre was started from 200 feet agl. That does not need clarifying. The "too low" comments came from people who weren't even there who don't understand that it is possible to enter an aerobatic manoeuvre from one altitude and exit at a higher one through energy management - something fast jet pilots here will fully understand.

So, again, the manoeuvre was started from 200 feet and, all other factors aside*, it is perfectly possible to complete the manoeuvre safely from there.

* By which I mean no mechanical or physiological issues.

[DaveUnwin]

Hi Pittsextra, I am an aviation journalist, and I'd like to ask you a question;-
do you have any relevant (ie FJ) experience? Any at all? I don't think you do, because you quite clearly either refuse to understand or fail to understand that flying aerobatics in a jet is simply not the same as flying aerobatics in a light piston. I've done a bit of both and trust me - they're just not the same.

[Pittsextra]

You haven't been paying attention. Both the DT and the AAIB are saying the manoeuvre was started from 200 feet agl. That does not need clarifying. The "too low" comments came from people who weren't even there who don't understand that it is possible to enter an aerobatic manoeuvre from one altitude and exit at a higher one through energy management - something fast jet pilots here will fully understand.

So, again, the manoeuvre was started from 200 feet and, all other factors aside*, it is perfectly possible to complete the manoeuvre safely from there.

* By which I mean no mechanical or physiological issues. Hang on I'm sorry so the figure was started at 200ft and all prior talk of others about pitch angle, video, lens and perspective is irrelevant?

Look I'm not making an issue with the ability to do X, Y and Z from one height to exit at another but I'm asking what the numbers should have been and where do they come from?

Its perfectly possible to complete safely because its in the plan, its been practiced and agreed with those with oversight on the day?

Sorry to drag this on and on but its important detail isn't it? If it was agreed, practiced and in the plan doesn't someone party to that information owe it to everyone with a care about aviation to clarify that point? If nothing else it looks like we had a plan.

Edited to answer Dave Unwin above:- I do not have fast jet aerobatic experience and happy to believe you and half a hundred other people saying "they are not the same". Yet what has any of that got to do with the questions I've asked? I didn't grant his DA, which as I'm led to believe from the AAIB document has two heights 100ft and 500ft for different events. I assume those numbers were in some way intelligently assigned - unless they weren't??.

I'm just surprised given the time between today and the negative headlines that have hit the pilot and aviation in general that if everything done was totally cool and in the plan, nobody has supported this view. You don't think from your professional view its worth a phone call to the CAA or BADA and ask the question "what do you think of that Telegraph headline?"....

[Above The Clouds]

Pittsextra
I'd have thought that when the Sept 2015 AAIB bulletin printed some numbers that got turned into headlines that someone from the CAA, BADA or individuals involved with delegated authority could have put those numbers into some sort of context.

I've not seen that done to date. Why? Perhaps an aviation journalist could ask the question of the relevant body/person and publish a clear picture in a magazine? That would be value add wouldn't it?

Pittsextra
Hang on I'm sorry so the figure was started at 200ft and all prior talk of others about pitch angle, video, lens and perspective is irrelevant?

Sorry to drag this on and on but its important detail isn't it? If it was agreed, practiced and in the plan doesn't someone party to that information owe it to everyone with a care about aviation to clarify that point? If nothing else it looks like we had a plan.


I get the distinct impression you keep pushing for someone, CAA, BADA, individual or delegated authority to publicly announce it could have - may have - might have been pilot error in advance of the final AAIB report. Its becoming tiresome that you keep banging on about the same points without listening to others who have experience in FJ displays.

[Reverserbucket]

FL said:

"Further, and importantly, the pilot's account of what happened is not yet known - assuming that he is able to recall the details. It is by no means unusual for someone who has gone through such a traumatic experience not to be able to recall."

Following the Police interview reported in December, we should assume that the pilot's account is known by some. Although it is indeed not unusual for memory to be severely impaired following such an event, might media speculation gleaned through access to newspapers that were provided by visitors to a patient recovering from an induced coma not influence unduly any memory of the event that may remain, or indeed create scenarios that did not exist?

[Pittsextra]

I get the distinct impression you keep pushing for someone, CAA, BADA, individual or delegated authority to publicly announce it could have - may have - might have been pilot error in advance of the final AAIB report. Its becoming tiresome that you keep banging on about the same points without listening to others who have experience in FJ displays.

Negative. The cause of the crash could be anything but it doesn't prevent seeking clarity on events up to that point. I don't see CAP403 as a fast jet only document and nothing that relates to the point being debated seems to place any special application to fast jets. I just wanted to know what the situation was and as we can see there is huge push back to answer what should be a very straight forward question.

Is the Daily Telegraph headline wrong and why?

[DaveUnwin]

OK Pittsextra, so we've finally ascertained that - despite pontificating at length about aerobatics in Hunters, you don't have any Hunter - or indeed FJ - experience at all.
Do you have any aerobatic experience? Or even any flying experience at all?
To answer your question as to why I haven't made enquiries, its quite simple - and dozens of people have already tried to tell you this;- I - and they - don't know enough about it.
There's only one thing that the people who populate this forum and can fly know with any real certainty - that they don't know enough to comment.
When the report is published and I've had the chance to study it and discuss it, then I may either make comment or ask questions. That is how professionals work.

[Pittsextra]

Dave - last one from me as it has gotten silly - I accept my own part in that before it gets the hackles up - but actually I didn't pontificate at all about aeros in a Hunter (show me the post). Like I said before nothing in CAP403 relating to the issues of height or figure being flown is specific to the Hunter.

You haven't made enquiries because you don't know.... yes that is probably why you would make enquiries? Perhaps to the people that might know enough about it... The second page of CAP403 gives this:-

Enquiries regarding the content of this publication should be addressed to:
General Aviation Unit, Safety
and
Airspace Regulation
Group,
Civil Aviation Authority,
Aviation House, Gatwick Airport South,
West Sussex RH6 0YR

Maybe that could be a starting point? It isn't as if this isn't a big enough aviation story.

[DaveUnwin]

Oh no you don't Pittsextra - you admit that you don't have any Hunter - or indeed FJ - experience at all. But you haven't answered the rest of my questions. For the removal of doubt, here they are again;-

Do you have any aerobatic experience? Or even any flying experience at all?

All I've ascertained with any certainty is that you have read at least parts of CAP403 - and I'm afraid a 12-year old can do that
I have those addresses, thank you. As I said, when the report is published, if there are any gaps or inconsistencies then that will be the time to make enquiries. Anything else would be a bit previous, IMHO. Another point that you resolutely refuse to acknowldedge is that the accident is still under investigation.

PS Do you have any aerobatic experience? Or even any flying experience at all?

[Above The Clouds]

Maybe "Pittsextra" should read para 5.58 again, "pulling though the vertical" and think about the actual manoeuvre conducted, it may clarify his fixation about commencing an aerobatic manoeuvre at 200ft.

[Courtney Mil]

Hang on I'm sorry so the figure was started at 200ft and all prior talk of others about pitch angle, video, lens and perspective is irrelevant?

I now have absolutely no idea what point point you are trying to make. You have shifted your arguments so many times that you have completely lost me.

Lomcevac, myself and others have repeatedly explained that you can legally pull up from 200 feet and go into an aerobatic manoeuvre, which then has a 500' msd. As the manoeuvre is completed it is acceptable to decend back to 200' msd if the next manoeuvre is not aeros. The discussion about pitch angles came from your question about how the pilot avoids doing aeros before he reaches 500 feet - ignore that, it's irrelevant.

So, AS FAR AS WE KNOW AT THE MOMENT, he pulled up from a 200 foot pass into a quarter clover, which is both safe and legal and approved. He would have needed to attain a gate which enabled him to complete the manoeuvre by 500' msd, but he could have decended to 200' msd if required by the next element in the sequence.

If you haven't understood what people have been telling you many times now, it is because you keep fixating on things that might have been wrong and because you are mixing terminology. If you still do not understand then just accept that the manoeuvres were approved, safe in their design and adheared to the regulations. Now you don't need to keep on and on asking similar questions and confusing whether you are dealing with a safety issue, a display practicality, a regulation or the perception of what happened.

Leave it there.

[betty swallox]

Well said Courtney!! (And DaveUnwin...nice one!)

[LlamaFarmer]

So, AS FAR AS WE KNOW AT THE MOMENT, he pulled up from a 200 foot pass into a quarter clover, which is both safe and legal and approved.

In that case...

Shoreham Air Show plane crash: Pilot was too low, official report reveals
Air Accidents Investigation Branch publishes interim report into crash that killed 11, showing loop-the-loop began at 200ft when pilot Andy Hill was licensed to perform such manoeuvres at 500ft and above

is incorrect and misleading.



I think one of the points pittsextra was trying to make was that if the DT headline is indeed incorrect, why has nobody in an official capacity corrected or clarified it.




I might be wrong though, it's hard to know what points he's trying to make

[DODGYOLDFART]

I must admit I am getting seriously bored by what in my mind has become a rather stupid circular argument. I am only amazed that PittsExtra hasn't shifted the argument to the entry speed of the manoeuvre, which in some reports suggested it was too slow. However this of course was not part of the DT headline.

[Above The Clouds]

LlamaFarmer


Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
So, AS FAR AS WE KNOW AT THE MOMENT, he pulled up from a 200 foot pass into a quarter clover, which is both safe and legal and approved.


In that case...


Originally Posted by Daily Telegraph
Shoreham Air Show plane crash: Pilot was too low, official report reveals
Air Accidents Investigation Branch publishes interim report into crash that killed 11, showing loop-the-loop began at 200ft when pilot Andy Hill was licensed to perform such manoeuvres at 500ft and above


is incorrect and misleading.



I think one of the points pittsextra was trying to make was that if the DT headline is indeed incorrect, why has nobody in an official capacity corrected or clarified it.

The AAIB Special Report does not mention doing a 'loop-the-loop' that is the Daily Telegraph's and other tabloids interpretation, the actual report if you follow the link states.


The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left, becoming almost fully inverted at the apex of the manoeuvre at a height of approximately 2,600 ft amsl.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55e993f5ed915d06a100002c/S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf

So are we now suggesting the authorities chase every newspaper to correct their inadequacies to type the facts ?

[Pontius Navigator]

ATC, indeed, I am sure most people will have noticed that a correction or apology is usually buried in the right hand column of page 2 or 4 and wholly insignificant when compared with a previous 'sensational' leading article.

Who knows, maybe a correction was printed.

DaveU may wish to confirm this industry method of hidden apology.

[clivewatson]

CM: Is that enough?

I’m almost afraid to post here for fear of being ridiculed by a few vociferous and largely nameless (in the latter respect, not you CM) experts who seem to delight in shooting down anyone with lesser knowledge or experience, but I’ll take my chance and pose what I believe is a reasonable question. Apologies in advance if I am typing out of turn, and shouldn’t even be visiting your ever so holy forum.

Leaving aside for a moment Lomcevak’s previous red herring which, in his defence, I recall as being the “guidelines” we worked to in my display flying days (long since passed), I have a question that someone with better maths skills than me could hopefully answer.

If we assume that the AAIB are correct in their determination that the aircraft reached a peak altitude of 2,600 (let’s call that AGL as the field is almost SL), and at the apex while inverted the IAS was noted by the AAIB as being 100kts, one might reasonably conclude that the aircraft had 2,100 feet within which to complete the manoeuvre. It might be argued by some that he actually had more than this, but unless it was another red herring Lomcevak also stated that “descent below the approved aerobatic height (500 ft in the case of this pilot, in the Hunter) to the approved fly by height is permitted once certain capture of the aerobatic display height.” (Assuming you lot have no objections therefore, I propose to use 2,100 feet for the purpose of my question).

With the limited information we have to go on at this point in time, would 2,100 feet have been sufficient in a Hunter – and without exceeding the aircraft limitations, or it leaving the envelope?

The approximate fuel load and weight of the aircraft has been determined, and the Permit to Fly flight test report will have recorded a recent un-accelerated 1G stall speed of the actual aircraft at a specified weight. From this it is easy to determine pretty accurate unaccelerated and accelerated stall speeds for any G value. (Pittsextra knows that). We also know that from the inverted the aircraft had to achieve a radius of 1,050 in order to meet the display floor, but we don’t know what thrust was used, or if indeed all of it was available. That stated, with the thrust normally available to the type, and forgetting the wind on the day, did the aircraft have sufficient space within which to meet the display floor limit of 500 feet, keep within the envelope, and was it possible to do so without exceeding any airframe limits for the configuration it was in?


I’m not entirely sure that it is possible to make a precise calculation (****, I'm not a military pilot), but surely we can narrow the field down a bit. For example, at 100kts (small radius) the manoeuvre would not have been possible – the required acceleration would have exceeded the flight envelope and the aircraft would have stalled. Similarly had excessive thrust been used (if it was even available), the radius would have exceeded the space available. Clearly there IS a balance of thrust versus pull required in order to achieve the smallest radius, but is it possible to calculate it – and align these figures to see if what was attempted was actually possible within a radius of 1,050 feet?

Ready for incoming!

[Courtney Mil]

CliveWatson,

Give me a while to go through your post and address your points.

For now, let me just say this. The regulars here don't normally shoot people down for asking questions about their understanding of topics such as this, although I quite understand why you might get that impression at times. Folk here get pissed off and a little harsh when people come here full of attitude and keep bashing away at issues that they do not understand in a way that becomes intolerable or try to score points or criticise or draw unfounded conclusions.

To come here and present a reasoned argument that does not state assumptions as facts and to ask for opinions or explanations is what the forum is all about. In my opinion.

I've scanned your post and my initial thought is that I'm not sure that 2600 was the apex, but that's just from memory. I thought that was the highest altitude recorded on radar - I'm not sure if the aircraft peaked higher between sweeps. I doubt the difference is that much and it's close to what I think MAY have been his top gate.

I'll get back to you an this and there will be others here that will certainly be able to comment.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hard not to think that if he had started the maneuver at 500 feet vs 200 feet (assuming the 200 foot figure is in fact, accurate), the outcome might have been quite different.......

[Courtney Mil]

Hard to think that he could fly the planned manoeuvre from the planned entry height and not crash. Hard to think that if all aero displays were flown to a 5.000 ft base height they might all get away with it.

I can't deny that additional energy at entry could make the manoeuvre safer. But then what is the point of air displays? Hard to think we'd not be safer without them. And Formula 1. And ski jumping. And Rugby. It would be a dull old world, but safer.

[Onceapilot]

Courtney,

You might be a little busy with thoughts about min radius turning at the mo but, I think you may find that major league motorsport has largely cleaned-up its safety, on international circuits at least. That process required major revisions in run-off areas and spectator proximity to high speed vehicles. I expect that similar restraint will inevitably come to future FJ public display flying (such as may survive).:uhoh:

OAP

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

Dave Unwin. Welcome !
Good to have a positive minded journo here.

Clive Watson.
Very good question very clearly put.

FL
I see irony in an establishment legal figure asking people to moderate behaviour which is not prohibited.

Reverser bucket
What makes you think AH has an account to give to anybody? Enough posts have alluded to the fact that with trauma it's not uncommon for there to be amnesia.

[LOMCEVAK]

Clivewatson,

A well worded post with sensible questions. To answer some of them:

The Hunter is not cleared for intentional stalling and so 1g stall speeds are not assessed on airtests. Even if they were, the lift curve of the wing varies with Reynold's number, effectively true airspeed, (and Mach number but that would not be relevant below about 0.5M) and so a straight mathematical calculation of an accelerated stall speed at a given g would not be totally reliable. And if you don't know either the g and the speed around the manoeuvre then you cannot calculate radius. Even if someone finds the data sheets for the wing section it would be almost impossible to calculate an accurate theoretical value of lift coefficient for the whole wing. This data may exist in the BAES archives but access may not be easy.

I have never seen a performance manual that deals with looping radius and pilots often have their own numbers for use in ACM or aerobatic practise but these normally are rough figures for guidance and then have a safety margin built in. I hope that this helps a little.

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra Personally the law and its consequences as it may apply to anyone involved here are less interesting than understanding the thinking behind the wider process of what is and is not accepted and who or what takes precedence.I agree.
It's taken a few years but I knew we'd agree about something eventually. :ok:

I'd have thought that when the Sept 2015 AAIB bulletin printed some numbers that got turned into headlines that someone from the CAA, BADA or individuals involved with delegated authority could have put those numbers into some sort of context.
I've not seen that done to date. Why?

Perhaps because while there is still an ongoing investigation it would be an irresponsible thing to do and it is better and wiser to let the official investigation take its course.
In accident investigation, accuracy is far more important than speed.

I find clarification is needed because it led to these headlines:-

Shoreham Air Show plane crash: Pilot was too low, official report reveals - Telegraph
The headline is misleading because it gives the impression that an official report found that the pilot was "too low". Closer examination of the article reveals that it did not.
Too low for what?
According to the journo: "lower than his licence allowed". :rolleyes:

David Learmount, described in the article as "a leading aviation expert", saw fit to say that the AAIB Special Bulletin showed that the pilot had been “unwise” and made a “misjudgement”.
Such comments are, as he knows (being a journalist himself), good fodder for the press, but it is not what the Bulletin says.

I worked with experts extensively for decades. I didn't, and wouldn't, use anyone claiming to be an expert who was prepared to express conclusions before all the relevant evidence was available.
In my experience, those worthy of the description are never prepared to do that. They may comment in very general terms about procedures, the aircraft type etc but they will never comment upon causation - far less presume to attribute blame - until all the facts are known.

The media are in the business of publishing 'shock horror' stories. It's not difficult to work out why the same 'experts' appear regularly. Entirely understandably, the media are not interested in using experts who, sensibly, decline to comment because there is insufficient information.

How often do we read or hear:
Aviation expert refuses to comment!

"X Y, a leading aviation expert, said it was far too early to make an informed comment and he was not prepared to speculate."

That wouldn't make a a good story so, understandably, the media use experts whom they know will.

.

[Trim Stab]

CliveWatson,

It is actually fairly simple to do an approximation to the mathematics of a loop. Acceleration is a vector, so the acceleration due to gravity can be separated from the centripetal acceleration of the loop.

If we assume the loop is a perfect circle of radius R, the distance from the top of the loop to the bottom of the loop is S, and the velocity at the top of the loop is v, and the time from top of loop to bottom of loop is t, then we find that t=pie*R/v, and 0.5gt^2+2R=S. Substitute t, and we get a quadratic equation for R. Solve that, and put in the actual figures you quote, then we can work out out that the centripetal acceleration at the top of the loop would be 1.9g, so (subtracting gravity) he would have had to pull 0.9g at the top of the loop, which is pretty reasonable and would not have risked an inverted stall (though I don't know the stall speed of a Hunter so can't be sure of that). As the aircraft descends, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy so that o.5V^2=gS+0.5v^2, where V is the velocity at the bottom of the loop. Chug away at the maths of that and he would have been doing about 250knots at the bottom of the loop and would have to pull about 9g to maintain a constant radius loop, which is quite high.

Now note that I said "constant radius" loop. This is not necessarily the case. Also, drag would have varied around the loop as different elevator inputs were used, so V might be a bit lower. But nevertheless, i think he might have found himself in a situation where he was having to pull a lot of g at the bottom of the loop, which is more or less what is observed in the videos.

Does anybody know approximate stall speed of the Hunter at the mass and configuration of the day? I can use it to work out how close to the stall he would have been at different bottoming out scenarios (i.e. 500ft, 200ft, 0ft).

[Courtney Mil]

Dave Unwin. Welcome !
Good to have a positive minded journo here.

Good to have ANOTHER positive minded journo here. Melmothtw deserves mention.

Flying Lawyer,

An outstanding post. You managed to say in three paras exactly what I've been trying to say in five months!!! THANK YOU.

[LlamaFarmer]

The AAIB Special Report does not mention doing a 'loop-the-loop' that is the Daily Telegraph's and other tabloids interpretation, the actual report if you follow the link states.



https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55e993f5ed915d06a100002c/S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf

So are we now suggesting the authorities chase every newspaper to correct their inadequacies to type the facts ?


I'm not proposing or suggesting anything... I was merely stating I think that was what pitts was trying to say but others were attacking him about his other points without acknowledging this point

[airpolice]

How often do we read or hear:
Quote:
Aviation expert refuses to comment!

"X Y, a leading aviation expert, said it was far too early to make an informed comment and he was not prepared to speculate."

Not often enough, imho.

[clivewatson]

Having survived my question, and further to Lomcevak's response, I found this:

http://people.clarkson.edu/~pmarzocc/AE429/AE-429-12.pdf

I'm not sure how to turn it into a link, or post it as a pictures for all to see but on page 5 one will see "pull up" and "pull down" turn radii calculations.

I wouldn't know where to start with these because I'm not very adept at sums, but surely someone here would have an idea, and might even be able to put some rough examples together. (eg an average 5 or 6G pull down at an average TAS at say 225 or whatever).

Also, the "pull down" chart has an interesting annotation. It's perhaps obvious when one thinks about it, but due to the increasing speed the rate is reduced and the radius is enlarged in the case of a "pull down" when compared with a "pull up."

Maybe food for thought when reviewing DA's?

[Courtney Mil]

If you want to describe (for example) a loop or a part thereof in numbers, you will find it a very complex excersise. The examples you show in your link are snapshots. The reality is a continuously changing set of variables as, most significantly, speed changes and gravity acts at at a different angle to the z axis. At least with a loop you don't (or shouldn't) need to worry about all that cosine bank angle stuff. But you also need to consider the change in control effectiveness and control authority with changing airspeed - very relevant for the F-16 as an example.

In practice, the equations give way to known loop dimensions for given speeds, hence the use of gates - essentially known parameters at various, critical points in the display. Pilots flying the displays are well versed in the theory of flight, but it's not a very practical way of designing or flying a display sequence.

[airpolice]

Courtney, d'you mean it's not about maths, it's really just pull back 'till it hurts, and then wait for the green to go away?

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, that's what I meant, AP.

[DaveUnwin]

FL - bang on.

AP, you'll never read/see it - because that's not what the mainstream media wants. I ran Today's Pilot for 10 years, and despite several invitations the only time I ever went on TV was to do a kids show (don't ask!) For a few years after the magazine was launched the BBC/ITN/Daily Mail etc etc would ring whenever there was a GA prang. Eventually, my secretary got so tired of me telling her to tell them "he says he wasn't there and doesn't have enough information to comment" that she stopped telling me they'd phoned, and just said "he wasn't there."

PN - there's a lot of variables that decide the size and location of the correction/apology. I did my best not to screw up in the first place, but when the ball was dropped (even if it wasn't strictly my fault) I always put my hand up. As Editor, the buck stopped with me.
People who know just a little but insist on pontificating on the radio or TV (mostly for their own self-aggrandisment) really annoy me. And I've always been very wary of self-professed experts - we all know that an ex is a has-been, and a spurt is a drip under pressure!

Finally, BPF - have you ever considered a career with the AAIB or NTSB?

[LOMCEVAK]

Clivewatson,

The maths in your link is sound but there are some assumptions. The pull up and pull down equations assume constant speed. They assume that the maximum coefficient of lift vs angle of attack relationship is constant at all speeds (which invariably it is not). They ignore the radial component of thrust.

In order to calculate radius the airspeed would need to be known (and often it changes quite extensively around a loop) as would the load factor, n, which also changes during the manoeuvre and, if thrust effects were to be taken into account, the engine thrust and AoA.

I hate to say it but if a mathematical calculation of the radius of a loop was easy to do, it would have been done a long time ago on this thread!

[Courtney Mil]

...but only by a test pilot or a QWI. And a QWI would assume that a QFI would probably prefer to do that sort of thing. And the test pilot would be too busy flying a jet he'd never seen before. So it never gets done.

[LOMCEVAK]

If I may add one thought on how to deal with questions about an accident .....

A friend of mine had a nose gear stick up in a very high profile aircraft type. He landed successfully, lowered the nose gently onto the runway and slid to a halt in a bow wave of sparks. He made a successful emergency egress to be met immediately by a star rank senior officer who had rushed to the aircraft. "What happened?" said the VSO. My friend replied "I don't know - I've only just got here!".

I am still waiting for the opportunity to use it!

[Courtney Mil]

Like it!

A QFI, a Test Pilot and a QWI go into a bar and order a round of drinks.

QFI says, "I've prepared a brief on the back of this beer mat to decide who pays."

TP says, "Who cares, someone will pay. Let's just drink the beer."

QWI say, "OK."

[DaveUnwin]

Lomcevak - genius! Pure, unadulterated genius.

[Flying Lawyer]

Agreed. Superb! :ok:
I wish I could think as quickly as that.



D SQDRN

FL

I see irony in an establishment legal figure asking people to moderate behaviour which is not prohibited.


(1) I don't.

(2) I don't think of myself as "an establishment legal figure" although I can understand why others might regard me as such.

(3) I post as a PPL/aviation enthusiast who also happens to be a lawyer with decades of experience dealing with aviation fatal accident cases, both civil and military.

.

[BEagle]

As recounted by a German TP (and one time 'Космонавт'):

"We sell an aeroplane to Germany, Britain and France, with all its paperwork. Each country decides that it wants to do something special with the aeroplane...."

"Ach, we cannot find the requirements in the manual's procedures section, so we cannot do this - it is not permitted!", said the Germans.

"Hmm, can't actually find anything in the limitations prohibiting it, so we'll just get on with it!", said the Brits.

And what about the French?

"Pardon - mais, qu'est que c'est un 'Manual'?" :confused:

[Courtney Mil]

D Sqdn....

FL is a straight talking forum member, who only posts about things he understand and gives us a valuable insight into the legal aspects of matters we wouldn't normally get. Probably little or no virtue in challenging him on what he says or his motives.

BEagle,

French pilots to a tee. Shame they can't carry that refreshing approach over into their domestic politics. But I still love them.

[H Peacock]

This thread appears to have been reinvigorated somewhat since the news that the 'JP incident' at the Southport Display is also being looked into as part of the ongoing inquiry. A fair mixture of views have appeared with the usual (for PPRuNe) spread of overly aggressive posts from some. The dynamics of the display sequence have never been too far away.

Turning to the 1/4 clover/loop debate; I have to opine that it was neither in its pure form, but rather (as the AAIB stated) a rolling and pitching manoeuvre. A pure 1/4 C with a 90 roll once in the upwards-vertical is followed by 3/4 of a loop and does require a lot of height at the apex. Now albeit a little lighter, the similar power/weight ratio of the Hawk flown at GH altitudes needs about 4000ft to complete a loop from a level 300kts entry, reducing to about 160kts over the top. In the thicker air lower down when display flying I dare say an 'aggressive' loop could be completed in 3-3500ft, but certainly not 2600ft that the Hunter is alleged to have peaked at. Even the JP/Tucano used about 2000ft of sky.

The change of axis required after the Hunter's initial flypast and Derry Turn at Shoreham could equally have been achieved with a variety of profiles; a 1/4 clover; a skewed loop (a touch of roll input during the manoeuvre resulting in a noticeable heading change); a modified barrel roll where the pitch rate somewhat leads or lags the roll rate again resulting in the aircraft exiting on a noticeable different heading to that upon entry; another Derry Turn / Canadian break. I'm sure most of us in the military have at some stage flown these 'skewed' loops or barrel rolls quite unintentionally - I know I have. (I can still hear the Wonderful Bill Brewer sat next to me to this day!)

Now, any manoeuvre terminating in a significant looping element (like the 1/4C) needs the corresponding amount of vertical space for successful completion, but a modified barrel roll could produce the required change of heading needed with a lot less of a vertical displacement. The required gate heights (ignoring IAS) could probably be between 3600ft for the 'loop' down to as low as say 1500ft for the 'barrel roll'.

I don't know what Andy was attempting on the day, but it appears from the video that the Hunter, once inverted, was effectively trying to complete the last half of a loop with very little if any change of axis, hence roll. He may well have achieved the planned gate height if he was planning on being at the apex of the manoeuvre off-axis and hence pitching and rolling (i.e. barrelling) out onto the A axis where much less altitude is needed. However, whether he momentarily lost his SA (dazzling sun, A27 v rwy 02/20) or he simply misjudged it, he was left with insufficient height to complete the half-loop manoeuvre with such tragic consequences.

I'm afraid you may well need to get your hands out to 'fly' the profiles elaborated on above, and as a QFI I have little doubt the QWI(s) will already have left the bar and gone to bed or fallen asleep in the corner!!!

[Courtney Mil]

H Peacock,

Great to see a factual post here for a change and well explained (even if only using one colour!). You're right that i had left the bar and was, in fact, dreaming about a particularly tricky off-boresite aiming solution, but was woken by my QWI dog alerting me to your post.

Just one point on the loop height, and you are right to describe the latter stage of the manoeuvre in question as the back side of a loop for practical purposes, although the reference to a (very exaggerated) barrel roll is relevant. I think your estimate of 3500 feet is a bit over the top - if you see what I mean. Let's disregard my memory of both Hawk and Hunter loops for a moment, in the manoeuvre in question the aircraft's velocity vector was very close to horizontal at impact - another few feet and he would have missed the ground. If you truncate a 3500' loop 900' from the bottom, the VV would be (I'm guessing here) minus 30 degrees or more? I don't think it was that much.

I'll check my notes tomorrow for the Hawk loop - I'm pretty sure I don't have that number for the Hunter. My memory says considerably less, but I won't publish an inaccurate guess here lest the vultures grab the wrong number and infer dangerous untruths.

Thanks for your excellent post and the descriptions.

Courtney out.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

Courtney

Don't think I have challenged FL on his motives or substantially on what he has said.
But he most assuredly is an establishment legal figure. (And very well respected too.)
I see irony, he doesn't.

Reality is that the law doesn't deter certain posts. You can argue here on pprune with some people or remind them that their posts go beyond decency but they won't change or moderate their behaviour.

This thread however is about Shoreham, not whether it is right or wrong for people to speculate about the causes of crashes. That has been done to death on other threads.

[LOMCEVAK]

H Peacock,

If I may add just one comment to what you have said. You cannot really have a meaningful gate height for a barrel roll because the minimum height required at the apex for safe completion is a function of the pitch attitude used in the second half. Personally, in a barrel roll I always look for being wings level when I reach the inverted straight and level attitude (which will be nose slightly above the horizon) at the top of a barrel roll and height only becomes an issue in maintaining separation from any cloudbase above. I do tend to fly relatively shallow barrel rolls with a low apex height because I always feel that steep nose attitudes in the second half from a high apex height are very uncomfortable!

[clivewatson]

I’ve given up trying to calculate the required looping radius – as has been pointed out there are sooo many variables that it is a pointless exercise. Nevertheless a few other things have puzzled me, and not least of them was the appearance that something happened at about the time the aircraft was pointing vertically downwards. Others here noted an apparent reduction in the pitch rate, and when reviewing the clip below it is seems to occur between 20 and 23 seconds in, just when the sun glints off the wings. I had originally thought that the sun may have distracted the pilot, or possibly he was searching for the display line and paused his pitch momentarily while getting his bearings.

Shoreham air crash: Man films Hunter hitting A27 road - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34034784)

I guess we will never know for sure, but either way it seems that someone with the pilot’s credentials would have managed both of those distractions.

Moving on though I looked back at some previous posts that mentioned use of flaps as a “normal” procedure when displaying the Hunter to improve its manoeuvrability. It seems that the consensus here is that the manoeuvre in question was flown throughout with flaps extended, but when I dug up a copy of the Pilots Notes I read that with flaps extended beyond zero and up to 38 degrees the aircraft is limited to 300 kts/M0.9. I doubt that it is “normal” to deliberately exceed the flap limit when displaying (or is it?!), but it seems that the benefit of flap for manoeuvrability comes with a pretty hefty penalty - especially when the Pilot Notes suggest 425 kts as the recommended entry speed for a loop. I assume that those experienced on type could manage a loop with quite a bit less than this, but my first question is whether sub 300 kts realistic? And my second is whether it’s common to be re-configuring during a display to offset the limit – assuming that it is not ignored?

Still on the subject of flaps, I also read a few poster comments on the consequences of over speeding with them extended. Lomcevak noted that the flaps retract as the airflow increases, but the pilot notes suggest that they will not retract completely. Of more interest to me though were additional notes included in Chapter 2, Handling in Flight – Flaps. Here both over-speed scenarios are highlighted, first the case when exceeding the Mach limit of 0.9, (not considered for obvious reasons) and the second details high airspeed consequences, both of which are entirely different limits for entirely different aerodynamic reasons:


“If the IAS limitations for the use of flap are inadvertently exceeded, the flap angle is limited according to the air load to prevent damage, but sufficient flap will be extended to create a strong nose down change of trim. This can result in elevator jack stalling and tail plane actuator clutch slip. In this event not only is longitudinal control lost, but the aircraft cannot be trimmed nose up by either the main or standby systems. In extreme cases the air loads may force the tail plane to move in opposition to the actuator thereby causing an additional nose down change of trim.”



I obviously have no idea what IAS had been achieved while the aircraft was pointing vertically down, but from the inverted at 100kts, with possibly full thrust and not much in the way of pull (at that point anyway) it seems likely that the aircraft would have been gaining speed at a brisk pace, does it not?

I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so please don’t hesitate to site my comments as an endorsement for the expression if you think I may be barking up the wrong tree!

[deefer dog]

Posted previously by LOMCEVAK in response to a similar question:

It is exceeding 0.9M that results in the uncontrollable pitch down; exceeding 300 KIAS when below 0.9M is fully controllable. The limit is always promulgated as M0.9/300kts but the reasons for the M and IAS limits are different. To put this into the context of display flying, please note that M0.9 at ISA, sea level is 595 kts.

Which differs from your quote. Haven't read the pilot's notes but if that's what they say there seems to be a discrepancy.

[Wetstart Dryrun]

If memory serves me, 100kts in the Hunter is centralise and wait. Maybe that is the pause noted on recovering to a vertical dive and completing the manoeuvre.

To keep a fast jet display within the boundary of a small airfield is not possible - so positioning manoeuvres will be over assorted bits of the surroundings.


A bit of flap is 'de rigueur'

That will do. Mustn't speculate.

[Courtney Mil]

Deefer Dog,

There is no discrepancy there. Lomcevac was addressing the pitch down at high, subsonic mach nos. above M0.9 where the pitch down issue starts. 300kts is not an issue for pitch control at low altitudes. The airspeed limit is linked to a note concerning airloads decreasing flap angle above 350kts and nose up trim change.

Looks like youre trying to find something else to argue about. There is no argument to be had.



Out.

[deefer dog]

I'm sure LOMCEVAK will explain the facts and without the agressive tone.

[LOMCEVAK]

deefer dog's quote of mine from an earlier post was written from memory and I have since re-read the Aircrew Manual, including the section that clivewatson quoted in his post and, yes, I was wrong and have re-learned something. The folk lore was that it was fully controllable if below 0.9M but at high IAS it obviously isn't. However, the Aircrew Manual gives no clue as to the IAS at which this occurs and I have never heard of anyone having this problem other than when exceeding 0.9M.

With respect to the apparent reduction in pitch rate passing the down vertical, this could have been caused by a visual illusion when viewing a loop head on because the eye perceives pitch rate as a function of rate of change in apparent fuselage length, and this is a function of sine pitch attitude and therefore non-linear (I have posted this point on another thread already).

The 425 kt loop entry speed in the Aircrew Manual is way in excess of what is needed for an aircraft in a low level display and was typical of the margin applied for inexperienced pilots in recommended Pilot's Notes speeds from documents of that period. The selective use of flaps during a display is quite usual and the display teams such as the Black Arrows and Patrouille Suisse used flap to generate more drag to give better throttle control over the top of loops. I always respect the 300 KIAS limit for the flap; I cannot comment on what others do.

[Above The Clouds]

LOMCEVAK
The selective use of flaps during a display is quite usual and the display teams such as the Black Arrows and Patrouille Suisse used flap to generate more drag to give better throttle control over the top of loops.

Here is a good example showing the Hunter using flap as LOMCEVAK explained.

http://www.radfanhunters.co.uk/Operations-208/208%20Sqn%20-%20box%20four%20loop_1960_PM.jpg

[POBJOY]

Ah When we had a proper air force with proper aircraft with Guns, tanks, and hard points. Now who is going to work out where, when and whom.

FGA9

Somewhere east of Suez possibly

[ORAC]

43 Sqn, Khormaksar, Aden?

[CoffmanStarter]

Just follow ATC's pic URL ... 208 Squadron MEC overhead Embakasi Airport Nairobi early 60's. Pic Pete McLeland.

208 Sqn Gallery Page 5 (http://www.radfanhunters.co.uk/gallery208-5.htm)

[Courtney Mil]

The AAIB Bulletin for Feb 2016 includes ejection seat and maintenance recommendations. No further findings.

[Courtney Mil]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/499085/AAIB_Bulletin_2-2016.pdf

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Anyone have any insight into that AAIB ejection seat bulletin? Is it just routine bureaucratic procedure grinding out bulletins? Is it their way of grounding jets like the Hunter? Did it have something to do with the accident, like was the pilot unable to eject? Seems like an odd thing to expend resources on at this stage of the investigation.

[LOMCEVAK]

If, in the course of any air accident investigation, aspects relevant to the safe operation of aircraft are identified then they should be notified to potentially affected organisations asap in order to enhance the safety of their operations, irrespective of whether or not these aspects were causal to the accident. If you read the Bulletin in this context then hopefully it will make sense as to why it was issued.

[APG63]

PPRT,

It isn't thought that he tried to eject. The cartridge life was discovered as a result of any investigation of this type probing into everything. This bulletin is a standard monthly report and there was a section on Hunter crash because there were findings to report. Resources are expended on all aspects of the accident until each thread is either exhausted or concluded. In this case, the AAIB has uncovered something that it feels is relevant to the safe operation of, in this case, ex-military aircraft fitted with ejection seats; an issue that affects aircraft currently being operated. Meanwhile resources are expended on many other threads. Therefore, they continue to report as they find.

The AAIB don't ground jets, the CAA have that authority. AAIB investigate, report facts and, where appropriate, make recommendations.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

OK, thanks. I looked up the Hunter on the AAIB site and the document I read was much shorter and only about the ejection seat in the Hunter. Didn't realize it was part of a much larger, routine document.

[RetiredBA/BY]

My (educated, I have used the mk4 seat for real) guess is that if he had tried to eject he would not have survived.
The Mk 4 seat in the T 7 is safe to use at ground level at 90 knots. However, a MB rule of thumb is,was that in a descent it needs additional height equal to 10 % of the Rate of descent. A quick calculation shows he was never within that envelope after reaching the downwards vertical.

[Courtney Mil]

That is a very good point, RB.

[AtomKraft]

The Elephant in the room is being ignored as usual.

I'm a pilot. Every so often, I drop a bollock..

What I don't like, is folk who try to call a spade a shovel.

And just for those who are interested, this is all about a pilot who ran out of sky. Can we not as a community of pilots recognise that thing that is clear for even a simpleton to see?

He cocked it up!

So? Who hasn't?


I'm fed up of this PC, 'Skirting-around -the-edges' bollocks'.

He banjoed WV392, and thank God- he's still alive.

For pities sake, call it for what it is.

[Wrathmonk]

Atom Kraft - you may, of course (and in time), be right. But the big difference at this point in time is that you know when you have

drop[ped] a bollock

but you don't know (yet....)

He cocked it up

It's a bit like trying to foresee the outcome of a referendum or election - you don't know for sure until the result is announced.....;)

[Courtney Mil]

AtomKraft,

The Elephant in the room is being ignored as usual.

I'm a pilot. Every so often, I drop a bollock..

What I don't like, is folk who try to call a spade a shovel.

And just for those who are interested, this is all about a pilot who ran out of sky. Can we not as a community of pilots recognise that thing that is clear for even a simpleton to see?

He cocked it up!

So? Who hasn't?

I'm fed up of this PC, 'Skirting-around -the-edges' bollocks'.

He banjoed WV392, and thank God- he's still alive.

For pities sake, call it for what it is.


I admire your persistence in this matter and your passion and certainty where you opinion is concerned. Your conclusion may be right. But none of us would be terribly good pilots if we jumped to conclusions about the condition of our aircraft in an emergency until we had analysed the situation carefully and gathered all the information we could before making a diagnosis.

If you fly a very simple aircraft, you may not have much information gathering to do. More complex aircraft and more complex situations require more care and patience in analysis. You think you have all the facts you need to analyse this situation? Let me offer a purely hypothetical situation.

A hunter is at the top of a low lever manoeuvre, one that has a vertical element. Soon after the pilot has started to pull the nose below the horizon, he feels a control restriction and sees a caution light. In the time it takes him to read the caption and look at the hydraulic gauges, he realises that the aircraft is now in a very nose low attitude so his attention is focussed on the ground, his altitude, his control restriction and the arcraft's attitude. He rolls the aircraft to the nearest horizon, closes the throttle and pulls. The next thing he sees is the ground rush and then.....

Now you tell me how you know that,mor something similar didn't happen last year. Then tell us all why you feel you can be so sure of what you just posted that you can claim to belong to a "community of pilots" and serve such a verdict on a member of the community you would clearly love to belong to without knowing all the facts.

You should be ashamed of what you just posted. I for one, as a very long term member of that community, turn my back on you. I hope for your sake that if you ever find yourself in a similar situation your community of pilots don't publicly denounce you before all the facts are known.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

AK

You may well be proved right in time.
I am opened minded and wait for the conclusions of the AAIB. My personal hope is that there will be a finding which shows the accident was not in any way down to AH.
However, I recognise that the majority of accidents are caused by pilot error and this may join the list of statistics. Indeed from what the AAIB have so far published there was no obvious fault with the plane that caused the crash.
You can give vent to your opinion if you wish, it's a free democracy in the UK and no proceedings are active. I doubt however that the AAIB will be coming to you for expert opinion even with your number of hours. If it transpires that AH did drop a bollock, many people will be interested from a flight safety perspective to know why if there was any reason why, and how other pilots can learn from AH's error.
As for it being the elephant in the room. I would suggest that the great proportion of pilots on this forum would not be surprised by an AAIB finding of pilot error. Doesn't make anyone who says the finding will be one of pilot error in advance of the report's publication particularly intelligent or uniquely insightful into the world of single turbine aerobatics. In fact, probably the opposite.

[Radix]

.............

[Above The Clouds]

Atomkraft
The Elephant in the room is being ignored as usual.

I'm a pilot. Every so often, I drop a bollock..

What I don't like, is folk who try to call a spade a shovel.

And just for those who are interested, this is all about a pilot who ran out of sky. Can we not as a community of pilots recognise that thing that is clear for even a simpleton to see?

He cocked it up!

So? Who hasn't?


I'm fed up of this PC, 'Skirting-around -the-edges' bollocks'.

He banjoed WV392, and thank God- he's still alive.

For pities sake, call it for what it is.

CM excellent reply to Atomkrafts diabolical post.

AK
May I suggest you apply for the recently advertised AAIB inspectors job I am certian they will be waiting to accept you on to their team with open arms :ugh:

[Junglydaz]

"He banjoed WV392, and thank God- he's still alive"

He is, yes. But what about the poor innocents that aren't? Well done on a half-cocked rant, containing drivel and insensitivity in abundance.

[Sillert,V.I.]

All this discussion about pilot error misses what is, to me, the real elephant in the room.

IMVHO, Shoreham is primarily a risk management failure.

Pilots, however well trained, experienced or current, occasionally make mistakes (and I'm not saying that happened here). This was known before Shoreham.

Airframes, engines & systems, however well tested, certified and maintained, occasionally fail (and once again I'm not saying that happened here). This was also known before Shoreham.

If either of these failures occur during a low level aerobatic display, the result could be a high energy impact with the ground. This, too, was known before Shoreham (and has happened with somewhat alarming frequency in the recent past).

Any persons unfortunate enough to be in close proximity to such a high energy impact are likely to be killed or seriously injured. Again, this was known before Shoreham.

It's possible to argue that a truly objective risk analysis prior to the event may have shown that the combined probability of all of the above holes lining up was simply too great to be acceptable, given the potential consequences.

There is a danger when conducting risk analysis to start with the assumption that an event should take place, and to put the case together in such a way as to justify the desired outcome, rather than to accept what the analysis is objectively saying. The best example I know of is the risk analysis which was conducted on the events leading up to the Challenger disaster, which was subsequently shown to be seriously flawed and to wholly underestimate the probability of a catastrophic event.

In the case of Shoreham, it's perhaps about believing the chances of a major disaster happening are one in a million years, when real world experience now shows the reality may be that it's one in 66 years or so.

[Courtney Mil]

Although I really don't know how their risk assessment was carried out, I think you raise a good point, Sillert, and I'm certain it will apply to a number of other venues - I've mentioned Farnborough here before. As the urban areas in the UK have expanded, they have encroached on the open areas that used to surround a lot of airfields and airports to the extent that even normal arrivals and departures are flown over houses very close to the thresholds.

I fully agree with your point about risk assessments finding the answer they want, too.

[Treble one]

......isn't DISPLAY currency on type a huge issue moving forward?

Rgds
111

[Sillert,V.I.]

Treble One, that certainly helps mitigate one of the risks, but on its own, may not be sufficient to allow an event such as Shoreham to take place within acceptable overall risk parameters.

IIRC the Reds (surely amongst the most current display pilots in the world) had already decided from their own risk assessment that their participation at Shoreham would be limited to flypasts only.

[Treble one]

I agree with respect to the Risk assessment and the Red's interpretation of the venue (high ground in close proximity), but I was referring to time on type and display currency on type per se in this case, and moving forward. :ok:

[Above The Clouds]

Sillert,V.I.
There is a danger when conducting risk analysis to start with the assumption that an event should take place, and to put the case together in such a way as to justify the desired outcome, rather than to accept what the analysis is objectively saying.

I agree with the theory behind an SMS or risk assessment, but ultimately there is the danger that the risk assessment will eventually be used to ground aircraft and put an end to air displays.

[Jetblu]

I have tried to refrain myself many times from posting here, but now has come the time where I can't stay tight lipped any longer. I am absolutely disgusted with what I'm reading here and a few posters should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

I just pray that Andy or any of the deceased families are not reading this thread. It's totally shocking beyond comprehension! Here we have a very much respected airline and display pilot whom went out of his way to entertain the masses at a air show. He went out to do just that! 'entertain' He did not set out to kill anyone or even himself. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, if only, if only. **** happens no matter how hard you prepare for it and no matter how many rules you want to put into place. Does it really matter if it was pilot error or a malfunction. It's happened and that is that, so two hundred pages here can't change that, can it, and if anyone genuinely believes that a 1000 page AAIB report and the intervention of the police will make much difference, you're deluded.

Spectators get killed at many events all over the world. It's obviously not nice but unfortunately it's a fact of life, **** happens no matter how much regulation is in place. Personally, I would like to see the AAIB rap this up now and for all the regulative authorities involved to collectively put the envisaged monies that would have been spent on this to better use. Perhaps the Hillsborough shenanigans or even towards further investigation towards the BLiar war criminal whom really did set out to kill the innocent, even our own.

AH needs our total support and loyalty. If brethren here cannot offer that emotional support it's probably best to say nothing at all.

[clareprop]

it's probably best to say nothing at all.
What a lovely concept.

[PhilipG]

I think that this point has been touched on before in this thread but what is the business model of an Air show?

As I understand it ones such as Shoreham are there to entertain the fee paying public, whilst ones such as Eastbourne Airbourne are free to view events held over a wider area thus implicitly safer displays as thus there is far more room to manoeuvre.

The likes of Shoreham rely on fee paying customers to come to a specified area, buy tickets, tea etc from your contracted suppliers and in the end it is hoped that a surplus will be made to support a charity or whatever. Members of the public who stop to watch the show from near public roads are lost income.

The likes of Eastbourne rely on sponsorship from National, Regional and Local Businesses to cover their overheads when running the event, thus every member of the public who attends the show will most likely contribute something to the local economy.

Will all civilian Air Shows in the future, except for specialist ones such as Duxford in the main now all rely on sponsorship?

[Courtney Mil]

Jetblu,

AH needs our total support and loyalty. If brethren here cannot offer that emotional support it's probably best to say nothing at all.

Exactly what I and a handful of others have been trying to say to certain posters here for months. You should have seen what was up here late last night before it was removed!

[Davef68]

Although I really don't know how their risk assessment was carried out, I think you raise a good point, Sillert, and I'm certain it will apply to a number of other venues - I've mentioned Farnborough here before. As the urban areas in the UK have expanded, they have encroached on the open areas that used to surround a lot of airfields and airports to the extent that even normal arrivals and departures are flown over houses very close to the thresholds.


Also very few airports (and airfields) that don't have a major road pretty close to the threshold as well

[The Old Fat One]

Jetblu,

Exactly what I and a handful of others have been trying to say to certain posters here for months. You should have seen what was up here late last night before it was removed!

Struggling to see how an intelligent man such as yourself cannot see the somewhat glaringly obvious logical contradiction in Jetblu's post.

here let me lend a hand

Spectators get killed at many events all over the world. It's obviously not nice but unfortunately it's a fact of life.....//..... the regulative authorities involved to collectively put the envisaged monies that would have been spent on this to better use. Perhaps the Hillsborough shenanigans........