Su27 Crashes at Airshow in Ukraine [Archive]

ExSimGuy

27th Jul 2002, 19:06

Was at Fairford a week ago - probably like any airshow, you can't eliminate the risk without moving the spectators a mile or thre from the runway.

Even though none of the aircraft flew over us, it wouldn't have taken much of a "glitch" at 500 knots for the aircraft to deviate enough to be over the crowds.

Sad when this sort of accident happens, but I'd rather take that small risk than be so far away that I need binoculars!

Gotta take some chances - or stop riding in busses! (no pro-Boeing pun intended there)

Rollingthunder

27th Jul 2002, 20:06

Apparently it's up to each country to set airshow rules. In the UK the crowd is 400 yards away minimum and the aircraft fly only parallel to the crowd. Ukraine doesn't have the same rules.

Devils Advocate

27th Jul 2002, 21:05

Newton’s 1st law applies at airshows – i.e. it’s pretty obvious that if something goes wrong with your aircraft when you’re on a trajectory that takes you toward the crowd, and if you then can’t change that trajectory, then you’re likely to do some terrible damage.

Now don’t get me wrong because I too love air shows but, by way of analogy, when you take your kids to the circus one hopes that the lions are displayed by the lion-tamer, but one similarly expects that this is done behind bars, such that should a lion have a ‘problem’ it can’t then escape and bite the audience (i.e. it's thrilling to watch but also safe).

However in this instance these people went out with their families to see what should be an exhilarating (and safe) spectacle, and yet end up getting maimed, crippled and killed - let's hope that this is properly investigated and that action is taken to prevent its like again.

Traggic - RIP :(

LOMCEVAK

27th Jul 2002, 22:28

As well as rules to which pilots must adhere at air shows, in the UK we have requirements for pilot qualification and recency, and we police the displays very thoroughly via flying control committees. Rules in themselves are not enough. Therefore, let us look at this tragic accident over a wider perspective than just a set of rules.

So saying, in the UK military and civilian pilots operate to different sets of rules; the display rules for military pilots are laid out in JSP 318 - Military Flying Regulations, and for civilian pilots in CAP 403 - Flying Displays and Special Events: A Guide to Safety and Administrative Arrangements. In addition, many air shows impose more stringent restrictions than those stipulated in the aforementioned documents. We have, sadly, had some accidents at UK air shows in recent years and, although there have been injuries and fatalities involving the aircraft crews, there have been no injuries or fatalities to the crowd when operating to the current rules. Please let there not be a kneejerk reaction to this appalling event.

There will obviously be much speculation as to why this aircraft crashed. One point of interest to observe when watching the video footage is that there were vortices visible over the upper surface of the wing for much of the pullout but then they disappeared just before the left bank was established immediately prior to impact.

My deepest condolences to the families of the deceased and to those injured.

Captain Airclues

27th Jul 2002, 22:53

From the video it looks to me as though the engines cut just before the pull-up, whereas they have always applied full power at this stage in the displays that I have seen.

Airclues

Taildragger

28th Jul 2002, 01:26

Just a week ago, I was in Rimini, at the Aviation Museum, and it had a very comprehensive display of aircraft, including a monument to the Three Frecce Tricolori pilots and the 60 od spectators that died at Ramstein after the collision of the three Aermacchis. What made it particularly poignant was the fact that the wreckage of the three aircraft was displayed as part of the memorial....very powerful emotionally.
I thought then, that inevitably, there would be another somewhere someplace, but was stunned to read about this one.
The Air Force Chief's responsible for the district have already been sacked, and the Governments of the area have announced a relief chest for relatives. Right now, I think, it's sympathy and support they need, not money....that will follow, and some positive action to ensure, as far as is possible, that rules are tightened up for this sort of display, to take aircraft away from the crowd line if something, as surely happened here, goes horribly wrong. The two Crew ejected.....I think given the fact that some people have already been sacked may point to the way in which they can expected to be hung drawn and quartered by the brass. It seems to be the vogue....check the Mull of Kintyre.
My heart goes out to the victims. Vale

jerseymilkman

28th Jul 2002, 09:06

In an attempt to get back to the thread (!), it looked to me like the entire incident started much earlier than is shown on most of the video news clips (which stick - not surprisingly - to the crash itself). On Sky they have shown a more complete clip which show the lead up to the incident and it looks to me like there was a failure at the start of the clip which could have been the root cause of the whole thing.

Best wait for the report - nobody ever knows - and guessing won't get us anywhere.

Sympathies to all....

JM

Ghostflyer

28th Jul 2002, 13:20

Captain Airclues

How can you tell from the video that the engine cut out? If you were looking down the jet pipes (which we weren't) you might see if the reheat cut out; thats about it.

All you can do at this stage is to look at the aircrafts trajectory and load factor. During the roll the nose dropped and during the pull-out the vortices off the top surface of the wing were g-induced. The aircraft then hit the ground. The crew ejected approaching impact which probably explains the reduced load factor just prior to impact, its hard to pull the stick and ejection handle at the same time.

All beyond that is unhealthy speculation. Lomcevak is absolutely right lets not get into knee-jerking. All areas need to be looked at including the Ukranian safety rules and the flight data recorders. Previous experience suggests that a good area to start with would be crew qualification and recency as well as the supervisory chain.

Airshow safety has improved in the West over the last few years due to a focus on crowd safety and ensuring that the pilots involved had completed an appropriate work-up and demonstrated the ability to complete the display safely. That doesn't prevent all accidents but it certainly helps in managing the risk. I am not infering that the Ukranian crew were responsible but I am trying to point out that there are a great deal of other factors to consider.

My condolences to the families of the deceased and the injured.

Ghost:(

NigelOnDraft

28th Jul 2002, 15:09

"Captain" Airclues...

I am amazed you can tell the workings of an engine from a video... may I congratulate you on your powers of observation and deduction.

Of course, you may have observed the apparent smoke from the engines, that I will agree does appear to cease somewhere in the pull out. Why? Who knows - of course, maybe both engines instantly failed as you confidently deduce? For failed engines, they still make a lot of noise however... I suppose it never occurred to you that possibly reheat was selected at this stage, or just another power setting - surely your great aviation experience leads you to know that smoke is power dependant, and particularly reheat, which almost always eliminates all sign of smoke... (watch Concorde or a Tornado takeoff - smoke starts the moment reheat is disengaged...)

NoD

Boss Raptor

28th Jul 2002, 16:56

I am choosing not to comment as to 'Safety Oversight' however the human aspect of the recent air show crash in Ukraine and this further Moscow incident is all too real...

...there is little or no provision for pensions/compensation for the victims/families of these disasters...right or wrong we can argue separately...

Without a bread winner in Russia/NIS life is tough for the dependants...standard Air Force pension is $12 per month...

God rest all that lost their lives...and may all of us in the industry pull together to help them...they are not aliens they are people in our industry...and very nice people in my experience...

Yes I am angry as all too easy to criticise...but how many of us are actually helping???

PS. A Klimov on reheat produces smoke regardless of reheat or not as do most Russian engines...

simfly

28th Jul 2002, 17:38

When watching the horrific event on the news, I am sure I can hear the engines initially at high RPM as it is coming down, is it possible on an SU27 that too high an angle of attack, as seen just before impact, may starve the intakes of air and then the engines flame out? I know aircraft like F-16's have the technology to not allow this state, but how advanced are the ruskies? (and before any smart arse replies, it is a question not an assumption, Im sure there are many theories!) It also looked to me as if at least one of the crew ejected after the ground impact, I hope for their sanity it was not their error which was the cause.

Seriph

28th Jul 2002, 17:50

Looks like he rolled inverted to low, didn't have room to pull through an g stalled it.

paulo

28th Jul 2002, 18:07

What I'm about to ask is a very difficult question, and ostensibly insensitive, but it's meant at a philosophical level rather than making any judgement on the specifics of this tragic event.

One sees in front of you a scenario which can only result in a huge loss of life. Do you eject?

This one was put to me in the pub last night, not in a nasty way, more as conversational soul searching.

Some things are easy to figure for most people - say where it's an either-or choice of who's life you jeopardize, say in an EFATO, but this is more complex.

After a good deal of thinking, I do now know what I'd do.

Seriph

28th Jul 2002, 18:55

It looks like these guys left it as late as possible, but what is the point of sacrifice when there is nothing more you can do.

Midnight Blue

28th Jul 2002, 19:02

@ simfly:

To answer your question, if very high AoA could lead to an engine stall in a SU-27:

Look at the "Cobra" Maneuvre, if you have seen one at TV or in real life at an airshow. I have only seen this maneuvre performed by SU 27 and MiG 29 aircraft. (F 16s are not able to do this...)
The airplane arrives at 800kph, idles the engines, pulls up very sharply, but doesnt leave a horizontal flightpath, which means AoA is going to 100 deg. The airplane decelerates in horizontal flight with the nose pointing straight up - even a little backwards to 200kph, tilts back forward and engages thrust again to continue slow flight.

So I think, high AoA on a SU 27 has never been a problem.
Russian aerodynamics is far advanced against westerly planes of the same age!

Capt.KAOS

28th Jul 2002, 20:35

It’s cynical that the two pilots got away with it after apperently overestimating the aerodynamic possibillities of the aircraft. The risk they took didn’t killed them but almost 100 spectators amongst many children who died a horrible death. The pictures made me cry, from sadness and anger that those pilots and the organisation didn’t care about the possible consequences if any of their acrobatics.

Capt.KAOS

"Death is like an arrow that is already in flight, and your life lasts only until it reaches you"

hobie

28th Jul 2002, 21:04

if it can happen ....... you can bet your life it will happen at an Air show ........ don't get me wrong, I think a good air show is the finest event you can ever attend but they need meticulous planning and observance in terms of every move in the individual displays and absolute seperation planning of the audience and the performing machines ....... even so, I remember a show in which a display team of 8 ot 10 single engine prop aircraft started a group take off enroute for home after a class performance, and yep, one of the tail enders raised his gear before becoming airborn ..... nasty!!!!

Seriph

28th Jul 2002, 21:12

Midnight Blue, you must be joking. The antics of Russian aircraft at airshows are of no use anywhere else. Western aircraft are designed for combat not displays. This aircraft was trying to pull out of a half loop not a 'cobra'. If you want to see F16 with aoa of 100deg then look at the boundary layer control development programmes with this aircraft.

simfly

28th Jul 2002, 21:48

Midnight Blue, thank you, I see exactly what you mean and slapped myself for not noticing sooner! After watching the crash again, it is easy to say that it looks like the pilot pulled back a little too much just a little too soon, seemed to have a near horizontal attitude whilst coming down quite steeply which would suggest not enough forward speed, very sad, but I do hope it was a mechanical failure that caused it.

I am surprised however, about the Ukranian military folks who have been arrrested over the tragedy. Has the government over reacted too soon wihtout waiting to find out the exact cause?? (like quite a few pruners do!!!)

Nostradamus

28th Jul 2002, 22:10

CAPTAIN KAOS

I agree about the tragic deaths of the spectators especially the children . But the rest of your post is........well perhaps the third most absurd piece of nonsense Ive ever seen written on here.

Ushuaia

29th Jul 2002, 04:59

jerseymilkman,

You may be right. I too have seen a longer version of the footage, only the one time unfortunately, and I would really need to see it again to be sure. I may be wrong, but there appears to be a significant right yaw BEFORE the aircraft goes inverted. Right engine failure/surge?? Just dunno for sure - I wish the TV stations would show a bit more than the actual impact. Anyone else seen this? Can anyone comment on how quickly one of these beasts will get on its back if an engine surges/stalls? Possibly very quickly.

It's very easy to say things like "he rolled inverted too low, didn't have room to pull through and g stalled it". Dangerous comment - it implies you are already thinking pilot error without knowing all the facts. Reminds me of the flak those Ruskie pilots copped the other day in the first 24 hours after the mid-air over Germany. Possibly the Ukraine pilots never intended the SU-27 to get inverted, and yet, for some reason, it did.

Please, open minds, guys.

Straton797

29th Jul 2002, 07:13

Does anyone know where I can find the footage on the Internet, preferably a longer version?

I've only seen it once or twice, but from what I saw the aircraft yawed and rolled inverted very quickly, perhaps one engine failed and produced the opposite yaw which flipped it over so low to the ground?

DamienB

29th Jul 2002, 07:55

Ghostflyer - you say the crew ejected prior to impact and this would explain the last yaw to the left which result in the impact.

It doesn't look that way on the video. Both canopies are intact even after the wingtip has hit the ground. At this point the video switches to another angle - either another camera or the bit in the middle has been chopped for some reason.

This part of the video shows the fuselage tumbling along the ground and exploding, with one seat falling to Earth to the left and a parachute blossoming above and to the right, with a very brief glimpse of another chute opening up only yards above the ground.

It looks to me like they ejected only after it was clear the aircraft had not only hit the ground but was going to turn into a nasty firey tumbly thing.

That last yaw to the left looks exactly like the MiG-29 Paris crash - and there he had a birdstrike; in the video there are some black specks in the area of the aircraft as it reaches the bottom-most point of the half-loop. Could be?

I see the BBC's graphics have the pilots ejecting as the aircraft hits trees but there's no evidence for this in the video whatsoever.

BOAC

29th Jul 2002, 08:18

Firstly I express my sincere sadness for all the human tragedy that has resulted from this awful accident.

We seem to have two threads running on this, the other in Mil Aircrew.

Some questions for this forum:-

1) Having seen the terrible scenes post impact, does anyone have a link to a fuller video of the manoeuvre before?

2) In the assumption that this display had been rehearsed, does anyone from the Ukraine region know what should have happened in the manoeuvre?

3) Having only once flown on a command ejection system in my RAF time, can anyone tell me whether the system is (should be?) inhibited during displays in two-stick aircraft? NB NO assumptions made by this question.

cargosales

29th Jul 2002, 08:40

Please could we have a reality check here. As usual knee-jerk reactions, emotions and speculation are taking over. Tragic events like this tend to bring out the instant experts but in truth none of us really knows what happened or why.

Capt KAOS:

Absolutely agree with Nostradamus. We really don't need such ridiculous drivel here. No pilot or airshow organiser ever wants anything to go wrong, let alone lead to the deaths of spectators.

Seriph:

Sorry, Midnight Blue is right. These airshow 'antics' are a public demonstration of the capabilities of the aircraft. In the case of the Su-27 these capabilities are immense and these 'antics' an important part of air to air combat. In fact, the superb wing design and resultant manoeuvrability and stability of an Su-27, combined with it's advanced engines makes it an awesome aircraft.

Ushuaia / all:

This is kind of similar to a previous accident. In 1989 (I think), Anatoly Kvochur was flying the MiG-29 which crashed at the Paris Airshow. (The MiG-29 is the same basic design as the Su-27). There was tons of of instant speculation about the cause which was eventually pinpointed as the a/c taking a bird down one intake, during a low speed, high alpha pass. Only at the end of the pass as Kvochur went to increase power did this become apparant. One engine dead, aircraft rolled sharply to the right. He steered away from the crowd as best he could (he succeded thank god), then ejected at the last possible moment (only a few hundred feet!) Chute opened over the fireball and he was very lucky to walk away from it unscathed.

Please all, let's not apportion blame until we really know the facts.

Capt.KAOS

29th Jul 2002, 08:40

Nostradamus

"But the rest of your post is........well perhaps the third most absurd piece of nonsense Ive ever seen written on here"

Well, tell that nonsene to the relatives of the deceased, Nostradamus..... In other words you would take the same risk over the heads of thousands of people including many children?

The reason for my anger was the fact that the pilots were taking extraordinary risks without taking any safety measurements in case things went wrong. The last stunt was way to low and much too close to the spectators.

It's time the Ukraine army realise innocent people are NOT their enemy, one might expect they learn after shooting down a passenger airliner.

And yes, I rather would have seen the pilots were killed instead of 83 people, they took the risk and they got away with it, the spectators had no chance, they didn't have an ejector seat....

Capt.KAOS

Flap 5

29th Jul 2002, 09:24

Someone has mentioned the high angle of attack in the cobra manoeuvre. That is a high angle of attack manoeuvre for which the air intake will be optimised. However before the crash the aircraft was side slipping quite violently as the pilot tried to level the aircraft.

A violent sideslip will create vortices in the engine intake, especially on the lee side of the side slip, which would cause an engine to stall. Furthermore the smoke seen shortly afterwards is indicitive of a rich mixture and this is exactly what happens in an engine stall i.e. too rich a mixture due to lack of air flow will cause an engine to stall.

Thunder Child

29th Jul 2002, 10:19

Hmm,

Without wanting to sound too controversial, the issue of crowd lines and safety is a bit of a misnomer regarding airshows. The only way you're going to stop an out of control aircraft from getting near to a crowd of spectators is to put a wall in front of them.

I was at Farnborough airshow last week, and was well aware of how close spectators are allowed to get to the runway, and occasionally had thoughts of how easily a disaster could happen despite the pilot's adhering to 'the rules'.

I was also at the Superbikes yesterday and it clearly states on the ticket;

"Warning. Motor sport can be dangerous. Despite the organisers taking all reasonable precautions, unavoidable accidents can happen. In respect of these you are present at your own risk"

I don't recall anything like this appearing on an airshow ticket, but maybe the public should be made more aware that flying can also be placed in a similar catagory to motorsport.........

cargosales

29th Jul 2002, 12:05

Capt KAOS

I dislike personal flames but please grow up, get real and stop posting such pathetic, childish, idiotic rubbish on this thread. A terrible tragedy has occured and IMNSHO the last thing anyone here needs or wants to see are the stupid comments you have been making. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Kilted

29th Jul 2002, 13:52

Have only just found this video on SKY, shows only the crash.

The video can be found via a small link in the centre page, it's java script, so can't post a direct link

SKY news (http://www.sky.com/skynews/home)

sabenaboy

29th Jul 2002, 13:53

Look at the video here (http://www.n-tv.de/3053508.html) or here (http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/xxp/0,1518,207118,00.html)
Regards,
Sabenaboy

Kilted

29th Jul 2002, 14:01

Ignore previous post

Here is the direct link (http://www.sky.com/shared/videoasx/0,,p2_20020729on-31200-bb,00.asx)

Capt.KAOS

29th Jul 2002, 15:43

Seems most members are more interested in solving the technical aspect then the personal drama. This accident would have never happen in the US or Canada where a minimum height of 1500 ft is mandatory and all aerobatics should be conducted in such way that all energy is directed away from the audience in case things go wrong. Clearly not the fact with the Lviv show.

Furthermore cargosales your reaction is utter stupid, I suggest you pls grow up.

CaPt.KaOs

treadigraph

29th Jul 2002, 16:12

Minimum height of 1500 ft in the USA Capt Kaos?

Really? At Chino, Reno, Midland and Oshkosh I have seen aircraft display as low as 100ft, at Oshkosh some pilots were bottoming as low as 5 ft (though, hopefully, with a recovery factor built-in!). The display heights seem to vary according to type and pilot's ability.

I would suggest that 1500 ft would put make any small types practically out of sight as far as the spectators are concerned, and they'd get bored and wander off.

At Farnborough I believe the minimum altitiude is 100ft - no exceptions though I think the gliders went below that for their final loops - and the runway is for landing and take off only. The display line is a series of dayglo markers on the other side of the runway, and it appeared to me that there were in fact two lines, presumably one for slower flypasts and the other for the fast stuff and aeros. The exception to that was the Harrier during the deafening bit of its show, which was over the runway.

The BBC is now reporting that pilot error has been blamed for the accident at Lviv.

Very sad.

cargosales

29th Jul 2002, 16:18

Capt KAOS

To quote you "the fact that the pilots were taking extraordinary risks without taking any safety measurements in case things went wrong" YOU DON'T KNOW THIS !!!!!!

"It's time the Ukraine army realise innocent people are NOT their enemy, one might expect they learn after shooting down a passenger airliner. " WHAT ON EARTH HAS THIS TO DO WITH AN ACCIDENT AT AN AIRSHOW??????????

"And yes, I rather would have seen the pilots were killed instead of 83 people, they took the risk and they got away with it, the spectators had no chance, they didn't have an ejector seat.... " MANY MANY PILOTS HAVE, OVER THE YEARS, DIED TRYING TO STEER STRICKEN AIRCRAFT AWAY FROM CIVILIANS. However, once an aircraft hits the ground the pilot is just a passenger and has a right to try and save himself.

In fact my friend, over the years I have worked with a great many display pilots from many different countries, including Russia. None would knowingly or recklessly EVER put ANYONE'S life at risk. All of them will be shocked and saddened by the events in Ukraine.

Unless you are an expert on displaying aircraft at airshows I suggest you wind your neck in. Your attitude and condemnation of people / situations you know nothing about disgusts me.

Konkordski

29th Jul 2002, 16:41

I'd challenge anyone caught in the same situation as the Sukhoi pilots not to pull the bang-seat lever. Self-preservation is an extraordinary instinct. I wonder if either of the drivers even had time to think about it.

ORAC

29th Jul 2002, 17:01

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2159332.stm)

Seems a bit of a shotgun approach in determining who is responsible as yet.

Defence Minister: Sacked.

Head of the Armed Forces: Sacked.

Head of the Air Force: Sacked/Arrested.

Air Force generals and colonels in the chain of command: "There were many incidents when criminal negligence came into play, when several heads of Ukraine's air force acted criminally."

Pilots: Still free but may "either be detained or put under house arrest pending the outcome of the investigation."

MMEMatty

29th Jul 2002, 19:14

Obviously some people havn't seen the video footage of the Pilot standing next to his parachute aghast at the scene of destruction...

I feel we should all pray for the crew as well, what must they be going through?
:(

matty

Smudger

29th Jul 2002, 20:34

Hear Hear, Cargo Sales; Kaos, you are out of order and a first class tw*t. I have enjoyed many flying displays since I was about twelve years old (48 now), I was at Fairford when the Russians collided, and this year had a grandstand view of the G222 slidy landing;- it was my thirteen-year old daughter's first air show and it hasn't put her off - in fact she wants to go again next time - I am an ex-RAF pilot who now flies Airbus for a living so I have been around the block a few times and flying has been my life ;- but is having a flying display worth all this death and destruction? I'd be interested to hear other people's views. I just don't know any more.

Capt.KAOS

29th Jul 2002, 21:26

treadigraph: appologies, I have to correct myself, the distance of the aerobatics has to be 1500 ft, not the height.

cargosales: are you actually reading my message, or only looking at it? where did I say all the other pilots in the world are to blame? I blame the organisation and the pilots trying to impress their superiors flying in Su27's which are on the ground most of the time because of lack of money and parts.

smudger: you might have been in the RAF, but I´m not one of your personal. Of course, you're daughter wants to see an airshow again, she doesn't know better. let me ask you, would you take her to the RAC rally and watch it on the outside of a curve, or would you go with her to an away match at Celtic wearing Rangers clubshirts, I wouldn't

Airshows are okay but who needs flying bombs

Capt.KAOS

Paterbrat

29th Jul 2002, 22:05

Capt Kaos, I think that you may rest assured that your sentiments of horror and dismay at the tragic event would without question be echoed by every member and guest on Pprune.
The fact that you are appearing to 'blame' rather emotionaly and somewhat irrationaly could be the cause of the some of the comments raised. Airshows and indeed many other spectator events will carry an element of risk to all who are involved. Accidents at even the most tightly controlled can and sadly do happen, it is tragic when it does and people die. But these events will continue to take place, it is of course your right not to go to them and indeed to express your concern as you have. And other will excercise their right to go to and see them and perhaps also to disagree with the manner in which you formulate your ideas.
To watch any display of skill power grace and beauty is a thing of joy. To see a beautiful machine destroy itself and incinerate a number of spectators a terrible tragedy. Life it appears is composed of such things.

pilotbear

29th Jul 2002, 22:44

Just wondering if anyone else noticed this on the clip?
The tailpipes of the engines on this a/c open up when afterburners are selected, the shape of which is quite distinct. However, from the clip, even from the angle it is shown it doesn't seem to me that the engines are at full power.
Perhaps a flame out did occur, a sad event all round really.

Oh, and by the way Kaos, if you were driving your car round a corner and you accidently skidded on some oil, and as a consequence your car followed a trajectory not of your choosing causing you to drive onto the sidewalk killing someone, would it be your fault for not pointing in a safe direction when traversing the bend?
Maybe with your Olympic championship winning conclusion jumping you should be a member of the Ukraine government.:rolleyes: :mad: :rolleyes:

Kalium Chloride

29th Jul 2002, 22:57

I'm not trying to take sides here Pilotbear but I think you'd technically be in the wrong for:

(a) not anticipating a possible hazard on a well-known danger area (ie, a bend)

(b) not driving at a speed which would allow you to retain control of the car in the event that you were dumb enough to do (a)

(c) failing to learn how to control the sort of skid that inevitably is caused by people so dumb that they do (a) and (b) at the same time

Fox3snapshot

29th Jul 2002, 23:33

Having worked at a number of western airshows that have included the Russian Fighters, or even at the Australian RAAF Richmond Airshow back in the late 80's which featured an AN124, it is a fact that they are always the ultimate draw card for the show organizers. Apart from the western intrigue with the eastern block machines, the displays are never anything less than unbelievable (which is why the An124 is mentioned earlier, he left the most experienced display pilot gobsmacked by his routine...costing him a grounding on the first public day!).

With this in mind, the concept that " this would never have happened at a UK, US or similar western airshow" is unfortunately a very misguided understanding of what really happens. It is a fact that the west have very strict procedures including display line displacement, no turning manoevers towards the crowd below X height, straight and level passes not below X height etc., however these are regularly broken and I am sure for the average enthusiast monitering or contributing to this thread that video or photographic evidence is available to prove this. An example is the SU27 at one of the early Avalon airshows who consistantly conducted passes and breaks down the runway at 50 or so feet...fact! This was in violation of the airshow performance guidlines but who would stop the star of the show......especially when as a start up airshow organization Airshows Downunder needed every dollar they could get from the "ice cream lickers".

My main point is that even with the best rules and regs there will be accidents and breaches of safety. These breaches may be accidental, some examples; pressure from authorities on display timings, aircraft mechanical failure, adverse weather or the unthinkable, conflicting display traffic (have that on film as well!), or diliberate where the display pilot's adrenalin runs away with them.

Every effort I am sure is made by modern western display organizers, but with the many influences that affect any outcome in life this will never be enough.....it is a risk industry, always has been, always will.

:o

Sick Squid

29th Jul 2002, 23:37

Come on folks.. keep this on topic.. DO NOT BE RAILROADED down some hypothetical conjectures unrelated to the actual incident and based on the processes by which people come to conclusions...

Discuss this unfortunate tragedy here, with all the usual wonderings of course, but please save the hypothetical wanderings for elsewhere.

Another dreadful day for aviation, heartfelt sympathies with the people and families of the dead; amongst the people who survived are two fellow pilots who most likely are not sure they wish they had survived....

£6

Capt.KAOS

30th Jul 2002, 08:03

Paterbrat; thank you for your composed and wise answer, which made every sense. I will take your advise to heart, thank you.

Pilotbear: in case oil is on the track there's an oil flag (red/yellow stripes) waved by the marshalls which alerts me to take less risk in that particular part of the track. I've been offered several rallye drives which I refused because of the enormous risk involved for the spectators.

I hope this tragedy will start people think whether breaching safety factors is all worth......

Capt.KAOS

railwaysengineer

31st Jul 2002, 05:35

Coming back to the information-patches about this tragic catastrophy I found this, unfortunately only in german language.
The main facts are:
the two injured pilots blame their military bosses:
- they were advised to fly another aircraft than they trained their programm with
- they were advised to fly as low as possible, but they were not trained to fly extremely low
- the aircraft they were advised to fly was to much fueled (I understand they mean much more fueled than the aircraft they used before for training the programm).
A first analysis of both engines: they were both operative, however additional investigations are necessary to show the effective thrust.
Here are the sources:
http://www.focus.de/G/GN/gn.htm?snr=109007&streamsnr=9
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,207408,00.html

Capt.KAOS

31st Jul 2002, 09:21

even if only a part is true what Der Spiegel and Focus is reporting, only one conclusion is possible; criminal to the highest level and some people may reconsider their flames towards me....

ps the a/c was too heavy on fuel weight to perform the aerobatics and that might be the reason it could not pull up in time and the left wing clipped the trees.

http://a.focus.de/G/GE/UPLOAD/HBNEAQevYe_.jpg

lomapaseo

31st Jul 2002, 13:06

> A first analysis of both engines: they were both operative, however additional investigations are necessary to show the effective thrust. <

In other words there was nothing found failed internally that would have prevented the engines from operating normally, if they had not been both driven into full stall (no compression) by the manuevers (see photo above)

beamer

31st Jul 2002, 21:53

Like many others I do sometimes wonder if airshows are really
worth the risk. I was at Fairford a few years ago when the two
MIGS collided - ok, nobody was killed though a freind of mine who
was on the North side came damn close to being hit by wreckage.
Naturally I appreciate that these events are enormously popular
and are important to the aviation industry, armed forces not to
mention local economies. YET, in the UK alone the accident rate,
particuarly involving vintage aircraft is horrendous - take a few
minutes and formulate a list of just the last ten years. I have had
the pleasure of working with people like Hoof, Mark, and Guy to
name but three - yes, they paid the ultimate price for something
they loved BUT despite all the rules and regulations is it not just
a matter of time before we have a terrible accident in the UK which involves the public ? The accident rate each year seems
more akin to Grand Prix racing back in the sixties - too many friends and colleagues being lost.

I have no expertise in this area and will gladly accept some of the
criticism which my views will probably receive - it just seems to me
that many display aircraft are being operated in a manner not
intended by the designer - what you can get away with at altitude you cannot guarantee to escape from at display height.

My admiration goes forth to those who display aircraft in such a
professional manner - I hope that luck remains with you.

Kalium Chloride

31st Jul 2002, 22:36

While the USA can rightly claim that it has not had a spectator fatality in the half-century or so of FAA-regulated air displays, I'm a little concerned about the risk of getting complacent.

I've just been reading about an incident an air race/display at Westhampton Beach not so long ago. Despite the FAA's approving the arrangements there was a midair smack and the aircraft wreckage fell outside the safety perimeter. The area just happened to be free of spectators at the time.

It just goes to show that you can't be too careful.

DamienB

1st Aug 2002, 07:33

beamer - Mark's death wasn't at an airshow, UK or otherwise. He was just landing. And you can be damn sure more people died on our roads every single day than have died at UK airshows in the last 50 years. Hell, more people have died at football matches.

Seriph

1st Aug 2002, 07:46

Amazing how some will seek to blame anyone but the pilots when accidents or crashes happen. It is the responsibility of the crew to ensure that what they do in a aircraft whether displaying or normal operating is safe. The weight, configuration etc is their responsibility and only they can operate the aircraft within its limitations not some guy at home or behind his desk. Same applies to helicopters hitting hills and Airbus' hitting the sea.

Kilted

1st Aug 2002, 08:48

Beamer

Select rant mode

This kind of knee-jerk protectionism is exactly the kind of mistake we now expect from Governments, but not from intelligent (OK - assumption) professionals. In all endeavours where human beings are involved, mistakes will be made at times - LIVE WITH IT.

As you say, there have been numerous incidents in the past - therefore any thinking member of the public (if you can find one - the Government is trying to make them an endangered species) ought to know that it WILL happen again, it's a matter of when and where. As such, air shows are akin to motor racing - they are an inherently dangerous activity and those deciding to participate (and that includes spectators) should bear this in mind when attending.

It really infuriates me when people suggest that it would be right to ban something just because THEY don't want to take a risk - what right have they got to prevent others from taking whatever risks they want - NONE (and I am referring to spectators here, not performers). The sooner this kind of "wrap everyone in cotton wool" mentality disappears, the sooner people might start taking responsibility for themselves instead of waiting for uncle Tony and his cronies to do it for them.

Rant over

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Capt.KAOS

1st Aug 2002, 12:07

Kilted:

your qoute: "As such, air shows are akin to motor racing - they are an inherently dangerous activity and those deciding to participate (and that includes spectators) should bear this in mind when attending"

In other words all the safety measurements taken say after that Pierre Levegh accident at Le Mans, like barriers for the spectators, armcos, nomex suits, rollover bars, safety gazoline tanks, crash zones etc etc, is just a waste of time and money and have to be taken as a risk, including the spectators?

Mercedes at least had the decency to pull it cars back a coupla years and think whether this is all worth......

Me thinks you're born 2000 years too late and would have loved the gladiator games......

Capt.KAOS

beamer

1st Aug 2002, 12:45

Damien : Yes I know that Mark was not killed at an airshow - my
regret is that someone I had known in the past died as so many
others flying a vintage aircraft. I do not suggest for one moment
that nobody should fly old aircraft - I simply make an observation
that the toll in both lives and indeed rare aircraft is a high one -
we all have the right to make our own value judgements.

Kilted : Again, I simply make an observation not a rant against
'human rights' . Air shows will continue, spectators and participants will continue to enjoy them; sadly there will still be
an inevitable price - I wish there was'nt but in a years time let
us see how many aircraft have been lost since this thread - I hope that there are no such statistics but history...................

Before I am cast as a total 'old f**t', I have been flying professionally for 25 years and have taken part in many an airshow albeit not in recent years. My comparison to motor racing
is a simple one. Spectators go to be enthralled by a spectacle - they do not go to have their own lives put in danger. Measures
implemented since Ramstein have without doubt saved lives at many a display BUT should an accident such as last weekends
occur in the UK do not be surprised if Tony & Co (for whom I have
no time) will ban it all within days.

Semaphore Sam

1st Aug 2002, 13:50

I know I'll get blasted for this, but:

In America, the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds demonstrate maneuvers which can easily go wrong, hence relatively high levels of danger. There are no inherent military benefits to their displays; they rank next to letting movie stars and congressmen do emergency surface procedures in submarines (and possibly sink Japanese ships). Pure PR activity, outside the proper remit of the military; as a taxpayer, I object to providing 'toys-for-boys', when I actually paid for military airpower.

Airshows should only be allowed to those who will bear the costs of disaster; let them organize and pay for ALL the costs, including 1) aircraft, 2) providing a 'safe' venue, and 3)accidents, which will inevitably occur anyway.

Paterbrat

1st Aug 2002, 14:14

Purely as an observation, but having had the privilage and pleasure of seeing a number of SBAC shows at Farnborough, one can think back to some in the past where we saw for example 22 Hawker Hunters looping, Fleet Air Arm Sea Hawkes touching down between two others taxiing in the opposite direction with their wings being folded to allow the landing aircraft to pass between them. A Vulcan bomber slow rolling just after take off. Low fly-bys of Hunters with various underwing ordinance or tanks and completing a fast roll just as they past the spectators only a few feet above the runway, (one such roll resulted in a very interesting swerve towards the trees as the pilot slightly misjudged it). Multiple aircraft / helicopters in the air in very close proximity, and many other dramatic demos

Unforgettable stuff ( one doubts that the Hunter pilot ever has), but over the years experience and common sense have dictated limits. This years SBAC show contained pilots who demonstrated their machines towards the outer periphery of the envelope and shown human skills as impressive and inspiring as those who did so in the past, but it was very much safer.

Most show organisers have learned from past experiences, as painful as the one that has just taken place. We all learn something everyday, our lives a continual learning process, some are a little behind others. It may be ventured that, tragicaly, the Ukraine just learned something, and more perhaps will be in the aftermath and subsequent inquiery. It should not however mean the end of airshows.

Kilted

2nd Aug 2002, 10:57

Capt Kaos

Gladiator times - not at all. As a marshall for the BRDC, I am very much in the "firing line" when it comes to accidents on track. However, every motorsport ticket details that it is a dangerous activity and should be treated as such. The problem arises when Joe public arrives for his "bit of fun" without taking this into consideration and then squeals when something happens beacuse of human error / failure etc (of his own stupidity - witness the idiot walking across the track at Hockenheim a few years ago)

Sure, Armco, tyre barriers, construction methods, catch-fencing, gravel traps and run-off areas (among other things) all help to limit the danger, in the same way that current guidelines do at airshows. It is up to the public to satisfy themselves that sufficient precautions have been taken for their safety before they attend. This will not prevent accidents, nor incompetence, but at least one would be reasonably confident that appropriate steps had been taken.

If we ban everything that MIGHT possibly hurt somebody SOMETIME, this world will become a very dull place, full of very dull people - where do we stop - "let's ban steps, because people might trip"?

Capt.KAOS

2nd Aug 2002, 14:33

Kilted:

I appreciate in motorsport danger always loom, but, being a marshall, do you allow spectators on the track and are you not obliged to report dangerous and reckless driving?

And good, fair, sportmanship racing can be very exciting ;)

Regards

Capt.KAOS

Hairyplane

2nd Aug 2002, 19:22

Anybody go to Farnborough on Press Day?

The weather was crxp and the displays flat.

THe Eurofighter display was a bit of a yawn when compared to the F18 - superb stuff.

Now to reality. The Eurofighter was displayed in accordance with briefed and agreed parameters - the F18 broke all the rules - I am told - shortly after take-off and was told to land. he nevertheless - I am told - continued to aerobat the aircraft on the downwind, after he was recalled.

Now the reality is surely this -

Both were there to sell their bosses aircraft. To do this, they needed to put on a better display than the aircraft of a competitor.

THink of the peer pressures involved?

A middle of the envelope display is easily eclipsed by a 'pushed to the limit' routine - maybe by an inferior aircraft?

Money is thus a big factor in the display.

I don't want to get in a Eurofighter v F18 comparison - you will miss the point if you think I am comparing the 2. I know nothing of the differences. However - if they are competing for a similar market and I was there to buy - I would have gone to the F18 stand first following the display.

Same is true of STOL types. An impressive display can be achieved well within the envelope. However - go to the edge and you can just as easily witness a slithering, sparking pile of junk. THe only difference is a few knots.

Capt.KAOS

2nd Aug 2002, 20:35

why not organise a dog fight between F18 and Eurofighter over the Nevada desert? Let them top guns make out which is the best a/c and throw in some SU's and Migs to make it even more real, guess more exiting then F1 nowadays...

Capt.KaOs

PPRuNe Pop

2nd Aug 2002, 21:18

With this thread there are two of the same subject using up a fair chunk of bandwidth. This one is starting to go off topic. So I have to say that if that continues to happen I will close it. But to be honest there is only so much you CAN say on this I guess.

We'll wait to see what happens.

norodnik

3rd Aug 2002, 09:18

Having just seen the Harrier go down in Lowestoft, and having been a Farnborough last Saturday, I have to say that all this talk of us being safer is a bit of a misnomer.

The Harrier at Farnborough, as is customary, did its "bow" to the crowd. It was much closer to the crowd than any of the other aircraft and was probably the crowd side of the centre line. If it had engine failure at that point, injuries would almost certainly have resulted from the explosion of the small amount of fuel and parts flying off everywhere.

We were just lucky that the Lowestoft incident happened at sea.

I don't go to airshows much now as they are quite boring, no big planes like the Vulcan, aircraft doing the same thing quite some distance away. We all accept risk is part of life and if you go to an airshow (or a motor race) you have to accpet there is a small chance something might land on you. The only alternative is to watch it live on TV.. wouldn't that be fun

Orca strait

7th Aug 2002, 18:06

The pilots of a fighter jet involved in the world's worst air-show disaster deviated from their flight plan and tried tricky new manoeuvres before crashing into spectators, killing 85, the chief investigator said Wednesday.
Click Here for Associated Press Story (http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020807/wcras0807/Front/homeBN/breakingnews)

BlueCross

8th Aug 2002, 04:08

I'd like to know what the pilots themselves have to say about those conclusions now.. Maneuvres they hadn't done before?? Seems odd.

Orca strait

8th Aug 2002, 05:21

President Leonid Kuchma demanded that the commission deliver its conclusions Wednesday, only 10 days after the accident, news reports had said.
BlueCross
Unpracticed manouveres does sound a bit suspect. Nothing like a quick deadline to speed up an investigation, end result - don't let the facts get in the way of a speedy verdict.

Baldie Man

8th Aug 2002, 16:44

Might be interesting to hear from any military display pilots as to whether they think it a possibilty that an experienced pilot would deviate from the plan. Personally I think it's total bollo and typical eastern block conspiracy stuff.

What will become of the pilots now then?? Exiled in Mexico?? Doing time in Siberia??

BM.

Reichman

9th Aug 2002, 08:08

Sometimes it's impossible to stick to a display routine. I've had to deviate from mine on several occasions. You might start off with a full looping display but have to modify it to a rolling show due to cloud. What do you do if you don't hit your gate height/speed on a particular manoeuvre? Carry on as the Phantom did at Abingdon in the mid eighties? No. You modify the display and, if you do it right, nobody notices.

Wherever there is excitement there is going to be risk; that's why people go to airshows and motor races. This was one tragic accident in many thousands of airshows which go on without a hitch.