Fairey Firefly at Duxford [Archive]

cubby

13th Jul 2003, 03:23

It is indeed devistating that two more people should lose their lives flying aircraft for our pleasure. How many fine pilots of the highest calibre have died over the past 10 years taking with them some irriplaceabe aviation treasures.
It is a simple fact that these historic aircraft do not fly many hours per year and consiquently nor do their pilots.
It does not matter how good you are or how many hours you have got, a low number of hours on type, plus airshow style aerobatics plus pressure on your slot, will inevitablely lead to aircraft crashing and people dying. These aircraft are old and when they were built they were not designed to last simply because the ministry new that they would have percentage losses to enemy action and to landing accidents and training losses. Look at the ME109. 35000 built and over half lost to landing accidents. And this aircraft cliamed the life of one of our most outstanding warbird pilots Mark Hanna.
I was at Legends when Hoof Proudfoot was killed in the P38 Lightning. It was the worst aviation moment of my life, and the most frightning thing I have ever seen. I and my buddies were so shocked at what we had witnessed that a number of us broke down and we don't do braking down. It was well in to the evening before we could start our long track back to the south coast.
So whats my point and what is the answer.
I have no point to make and no real solution to these problems.
I have been flying for 7 years and I know one or two of the display pilots of WWII aircraft, and I know that as long as people want to see them flying and people keep on restoring them then I live in hope that one day I will have the privilage of flying one at an airshow and I would take my chances with the rest.

R.I.P

Cubby.........

Zlin526

13th Jul 2003, 04:35

Cubby, you're not a journalist are you?

It is a simple fact that these historic aircraft do not fly many hours per year and consiquently nor do their pilots.

It does not matter how good you are or how many hours you have got, a low number of hours on type, plus airshow style aerobatics plus pressure on your slot, will inevitablely lead to aircraft crashing and people dying.

How do we know that any of these factors were involved? And WTF is "pressure on your slot"?

These aircraft are old and when they were built they were not designed to last simply because the ministry new that they would have percentage losses to enemy action and to landing accidents and training losses.

The aircraft had just completed a thorough rebuild and could be considered 'as new'

Sorry for my aggressive post, but I spent all day at Duxford yesterday, and spoke with the Pilot & Pax in the call of duty. I very much get hacked off when an incident like this happens and people who obviously know very little about display flying feel a great need to insert their 2 pennyworth. By all means post something relevant, but please dont post a complete load of b@ll@cks

My sincere condolences to both Pilot and pax's families & friends. Let's not get embroiled in a speculation contest, just await the facts.. A very, very sad day for all concerned.

Rant over:ugh:

Leicester1

13th Jul 2003, 05:29

Guys,

I was at DX today and saw the whole sorry tale unfold. The long and short of it was 'too low, too slow ...... far to little power'. Having executed an E->W 'run-in' pass the Firefly pulled up from this relatively slow run by and performed a barrel roll. Significant height was lost during this manoeuvre, plus airspeed. The pilot turned back on to the display centreline, in a relatively flat attitude and commenced his W->E pass. The lack of energy gained as a result of the prevous low altitude manoeuvre meant that this second pass was very slow, but with similar (low) RPM to the initial pass. After this run-by the pilot pulled the a/c nose up, approximately South Easterly and began to barrel roll. Having just rolled inverted, the lack of airspeed cause the aeroplane's nose to drop, resulting in an approximate 80deg. 'nose-down' attitude. Some lateral oscillation was evidenced in the attempts to recover, but insufficient height remained to facilitate recovery and although a probably 30deg attitude had been acheived the Firefly impacted rising farmland some 1 mile south of the A505 junction ........ the impact resulted in a huge cloud of earth, chalk and cereal crop ...... there was no evidence of fuel ignition on impact. A tragic event to witness, resulting in the loss of two lives and a very rare airframe. My condolences to the families of the two crewmen. On a closing note guys........ be careful in quoting particular aircraft types involved in accidents and making an inference that indicates that the type of A/C was responsible in some part. Remember the facts ....... pilot error is the No.1 killer, mechanical or associated failures are far behind in percentage terms. The papers will be full of this incident tomorrow, and more individuals will see that bad news than 'we' will see the facts in the aviation press. Duxford is just coming off the back of bad press following the publishing of the L-39 accident report ...... if we want to see these superb aircraft flying long into the future, we need to get right behind the organisations and private individuals who go to so much trouble to bring this history to life.

foundation digger

13th Jul 2003, 05:30

On the tele it looked like low level aerobatics

So sorry for the families of the crew.

Should be fly by only clearance, would stop all this happening.

Anne.Nonymous

13th Jul 2003, 05:34

Saw this Firefly on its first flight after it returned from Australia and many times since. Yesterday morning I looked up to watch it as it climbed out from Yeovilton before turning East.

A tragedy for all concerned and my thoughts are with the relatives of those who died.

Anne

Sooty

13th Jul 2003, 05:48

Another sad event, again condolences to all involved.

This seems to be an unfortunately common occurence in air displays worldwide. I don't know the specifics of this case but are these pilots pushing things too much for the public? They are flying beautiful machines, maybe the displays should be done at a higher level. I know I certainly wouldn't complain. Keep it up guys, everyone loves to see it, but more than anything we would love to see you guys back on the ground.

Thanks for your art.

dicksynormous

13th Jul 2003, 07:37

Sad i agree however my post on the sudan 737 refers.

(my intenton is not to be disrepectful to the dead just to point out the imbalance, so save your slagging).

BoeingMEL

13th Jul 2003, 16:36

Having now repeatedly watched video footage of the Duxford accident I agree 100% with Leicester1. The manoeuvres during the final 15-20 seconds all seemed to lack energy (speed) management... the start of the attempted pull-up from wings level was initiated at very low level. At an airshow bristling with aerobatic displays, was it really necessary to put this dear old lady of the skies through a low level aerobatic routine? Very sad.. and ironic too after my Friday afternoon posting lamenting the loss of the CAF Heinkel 111 and its crew. God bless them. bm

........and what dreadful coverage by Sky News. Pretty face describes aircraft as doing "tricks" then male colleague states that one pilot ejected.... from a '49 Firefly for God's sake.

NigelOnDraft

13th Jul 2003, 17:01

Disagree with a lot of the above posts I'm afraid...

1. Cause of accident. Please await the AAIB report - I'm glad you individuals have already done their job for them. As for too "low & slow" - glad you know the limits the Firefly display works to (please post them here), and what the speed and height was yesterday (again please post here).

2. Stopping Aerobatic displays. Well - why not just ground them - plenty of accidents in these aircraft landing and taking off (don't know how you'll stop that), or transits. In fact why not ban all flying all together - that'll stop aircraft accidents?

Flying these aircraft in air displays gives the paying public, and the pilots concerned much pleasure. The pilots especially know the risks involved, and choose, indeed compete for the seats, to do this. The CAA regulate the airshows to minimise the hazard to the public - as they should - and seem pretty good at it.

Potentially one might reduce the number of accidents at airshows by more regulation e.g. more practices in type. I doubt this would reduce the overall accidents - it would just transfer them away from the airshows - probably would actually increase the overall risk, and definitely the costs.

Flying displays are one of largest public attendance events in the country, and the numbers killed on the flying side are almost certainly less than the public killed in their cars just getting to and from the airshows. Its just that any accident draws a disproportionate degree of publicity...

LGW Vulture

13th Jul 2003, 17:22

Dicksy....

Your post is not lost on me certainly.

Whilst I have to agree that any accident is very sad, the outpouring of "emotion" for two people who knew the danger of their obsession against the lack of thought of the majority on this site showed for some totally innocent 100 or so Sudanese who only wished to travel between A and B, is appalling.

Either all people involved in aviation pull together and show their heartfelt sorrow for those concerned in these tragedies or they shut up completely.

Sometimes these threads can leave a real sour taste in the mouth.

My rant over!

DOC.400

13th Jul 2003, 17:26

Why THANK you Nigel!!

Just await the AAIB report guys -I've had enough of this armchair accident investigation.....

Superb day of some excellent formation flying in disparate types sadly marred by this incident. May the crew rest in peace.

I wonder how many died on the roads yesterday.....

DOC

BigGreenPleasureMachine

13th Jul 2003, 17:28

NOD has a point that AAIB will investigate this more thoroughly than any of us can through (informed) speculation.

However, if L1 is correct in that the aircraft was manoevuring too close to the ground with insufficient airspeed, is it not incumbent on ATC or the flight safety committee to terminate the display?

It is sad that another accident of this sort has happened at Duxford, and that two more experienced aviators have been killed.

I would be very disappointed if these old types were grounded, but in light of recent accidents, perhaps its time to limit the aerobatic manoevures they are permitted to perform.

Condolences to the families and friends of these two men.

Regards, BGPM.

Zlin526

13th Jul 2003, 17:40

Leicester 1 - Good factual post, just as I saw it, but the final manoeuvre looked to me like the start of a Derry turn (roll right, turn left etc)?

NigelonDraft - Excellent post and agree totally with your views, just one comment. As the aircraft was Royal Navy owned and operated, with a serving RN officer in command, the inquiry will almost certainly be a Royal Navy 'Board of Enquiry', not by the AAIB.

As for the increased accident risks associated with Flying Displays, they get more TV coverage due to the high number of press/public/media in attendance. Hence the headlines..

Overall, and when you consider how many displays there are in the UK every year, any accident at a flying display is rare. If something does happen at low level, the options for sorting it out are limited. But then, how many paying public would like to see an aircraft performing at 5000ft, and 1000m+ away from the crowd?

Can you imagine if the 'Ban everything Brigade' were in attendance at every non-display aircraft accident in the UK, no matter how minor it was? Flying would have been banned in the 1930's, nosewheels would have been abolished due the high number of pilots who manage to remove them on landing, and runways would have been made into 5000m super runways due to the large number of light aircraft over-runs.. Everybody, everywhere would be flying a Piper Cub! Maybe not a bad thing?

Sex is risky - Ban that and see what people say!

NigelOnDraft

13th Jul 2003, 17:52

Z256

<<the inquiry will almost certainly be a Royal Navy 'Board of Enquiry', not by the AAIB.>>
Good point - in fact, an RN enquiry was announced yesterday. Presuming its like the RAF, the AAIB assist, and presumably the CAA Airshow lot will get recommendations / assist etc.

BGPM
<<However, if L1 is correct in that the aircraft was manoevuring too close to the ground with insufficient airspeed, is it not incumbent on ATC or the flight safety committee to terminate the display? >>
This is a matter for the enquiry... it was a factor in the second Biggin Hill accident, and highlighted again. Obviously L1 had a far better viewpoint or analysis than the Flt Safety committee... lets leave their viewpoint to the enquiry.

<<I would be very disappointed if these old types were grounded, but in light of recent accidents, perhaps its time to limit the aerobatic manoevures they are permitted to perform. >>
<<another accident of this sort has happened at Duxford>>
In that you've obviously analysed it, the aerobatics you seek to ban are they cause of all these accidents are they? Lets take the BBCs "History of airfield crashes" at Duxford
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3061561.stm

Firefly - aerobatic display
L-39 - overran on landing.
T6 Harvard - crashed on takeoff
Me109 - overran on landing
P38 - Aerobatic display

I know this is small snapshot, but the reality is almost certainly similar - the aerobatic displays stick in the mind, but landings / takeoffs / transits claim a fair number also. Your banning aerobatics will only solve part of your percieved "problem", whilst denying the right of the pilots and hundreds of thousands of spectators to enjoy the displays.

Oh and PS - don't go in the sun today - it could be dangerous!

NoD

BigGreenPleasureMachine

13th Jul 2003, 17:55

Zlin, not sure I agree that AAIB won't be involved. Accident at civilian airshow surely warrants a civilian investigation. At the very least AAIB will assist RN board of inquiry.

BGPM.

BEagle

13th Jul 2003, 18:15

The video footage on Sky News shows the ac entering a rolling manoeuvre to the right following a fairly gentle climbing turn. At approx 120 deg of roll, the attitude is virtually level, but the nose begins to drop below the horizon at an increasing rate. In the next 60 deg of roll, the attitude becomes progressively steeper; at the inverted position it is almost 45 deg nose low. The roll to the right continues, with the roll rate decreasing markedly until the ac is pointing vertically downwards. Then, after a brief hesitation, the roll direction reverses and the ac rolls through approximately 180 deg in the vertical; in the latter stages of the roll the pitch attitude starts to reduce, although it is still in excess of 45 deg below the horizon when the roll is completed. The ac then pitches further towards the horizon with noticeable wing rock before impacting the ground in a shallow, wings level attitude at a high rate of descent.

That is a description of the video; it is NOT a comment upon the cause of the accident. That is the responsibility of the accident investigators, not armchair theorists. Condolences to the families and friends of the deceased; the volunteers of the RNHF keep naval aviation heritage alive on what is a tiny budget and this tragedy should not be allowed to put the future of the Flight in any doubt.

jumpseater

13th Jul 2003, 19:03

I thought that after an aircrash some time ago that there had been a CAA restriction on 'operating crew' only whilst flying the display. My understanding of the Firefly is that the aircraft is single pilot only, and was surprised to hear of two casualties. Is my understanding of the display rules/Firefly crew complement wrong, or is it only a civil requirement that the aircraft not carry 'passengers' during a display?

BigGreenPleasureMachine

13th Jul 2003, 19:10

Point taken, NOD, and I agree that a blanket ban on aerobatics would be the wrong attitude to take, given that not all airshow accidents are a direct result of misjugded aerobatic manoevures.

You are right to point out other accidents in other phases of flight, however, if one looks at the survivability issues in the examples you quote: the Harvard and 109 were non fatal, and the Aerovodochody L39 was a survivable accident which proved fatal. The two aerobatic accidents were non-survivable.

I do not advocate a ban on aerobatics at airshows, but when very experienced pilots are being killed in perfectly servicable aircraft, I believe there must be issues that need to be addressed with respect to the envelope within which the aircraft are permitted to operate. I hope the RN BOI and AAIB can resolve these and we can all continue to see these fine aircraft on display.

With respect to exposing oneself to risk, yes we all take a chance getting out of bed in the mornings, but in the sun I wear a hat, in the car I use my seat belt. Minimising risk need not preclude the enjoyment of life.

BGPM.

PS better to look at the bulletins at [URL=http://aaib.dft.gov.uk] than the Beeb to get a proper overview of these accidents.

Cosmic Wind

13th Jul 2003, 19:59

Be interested to know if the roll under from the wing-over was part of the planned display or ad-libbing. Can't believe that an accident of this nature is still occuring with the safety culture that surrounds todays air display scene. I appreciate that it's early days but the result looks simply a combination of an underpowered/rated aircraft flow into a high energy figure too slowly, what about entry gates? , lack of familiarity?
What a total waste......

Dr Jekyll

13th Jul 2003, 21:59

I seem to remember speculation at the time of the Woodford Spitfire incident that the engine power was reduced due to the high ambient temperature and that the pilot may have failed to adequately allow for this.

Given that both incidents involved failure to recover from a manoevre that appeared to have been entered unusually slowly, and considering the weather on saturday, this may be significant.

Zlin526

13th Jul 2003, 22:18

BGPM,

The Firefly was a Military aircraft, so RN/MOD Board of inquiry is set up. Yes AAIB may assist, but the BoI takes primacy. The fact it was a Civilian display is not important. As for the FCC terminating the Firefly display, they'd have to be VERY quick off the mark to have stopped it just as the aircraft nose dropped below the horizon. Maybe 5 seconds until impact??? Time to get off their seat and go 5 yards to the Visual control room at DX, then inform the Display Director, who then gets ATC to radio the pilot, then pilot to stop display??? 2 minutes? Believe me, as someone who has had the un-enviable task of having to do it on numerous occasions, it takes a long time......And doesn't always have a positive & happy ending:(

Jumpseater,

The CAA Air Display section restricts civilian aircraft at Flying Displays to operating crew only, unless formal written permission is granted by them for essential flight safety reasons (visibility, special aircraft procedures etc). This is a sound procedure and has worked well in the past. As the Firefly was a military aircraft, the RN approved the aircraft to be operated with 2 persons on board. Probably ballast or something similar. Same as the Swordfish, which flies with 3 crew (Pilot, Observer, Flag waver/Saluting orderly!), and the BBMF Lancaster (5 carried on board I believe).

CamelPilot

14th Jul 2003, 00:14

First and foremost. My condolences to the family of the two men. And to the great team that is the RNHA. They will be feeling pretty dreadful today, having lost a great pilot and a fitter who was an aviation 'nut.'

But...........to those who speculate and offer unsound opinions I would say one word, DON'T. You probably don't know what you are talking about since you were not on board, and every opinion is based upon pure specualtion. Only the BoI and the AAIB (yes they will be involved) will find the cause.

Having said that, read BEAgle's concise view, and as an ex display pilot I can assure you that he has it just about right.

I have my own view of it - as I expect does BEags - but like him it stays with me.

BoeingMEL

14th Jul 2003, 01:16

Nice one Camel Pilot.... a full paragraph telling us not to speculate and then you recognise Beag's speculation as being just like yours! bm

BEagle

14th Jul 2003, 01:23

Please note that I made no speculation whatsoever in my post; I merely reported what the video footage showed. I stated what had happened, not why or how.

It is inappropriate to comment further; CamelPilot undoubtedly has his opinion on the accident as do I. However, those views will remain private.

Again, my condolences to the bereaved.

NigelOnDraft

14th Jul 2003, 01:31

Come on!

Zlin256, CamelPilot and BEagle, have made no speculation as to the cause of the accident - just made (or agreed with) observations of what occurred. More importantly, they have made no subjective comments such as "too low..." "too slow..." etc. And quite right too....

AdamUK, Dr Jekyll, Cosmic whatever and others have made, or agreed with others', subjective judgements on not only what happened, but effectively the crews' actions. That is way offside... Please leave it out! The BoI/AAIB et al are there to gather the evidence, and decide what and why happened. it will take a lot more time, expertise and evidence than any of you armchair experts/judges.

NoD

CamelPilot

14th Jul 2003, 02:40

Boeing MEL

Like BEAg's I made NO speculation. I simply agreed, from my own observations, with his. They were spot on. Not speculation, just what the a/c was actuallydoing. And like him, I am keeping my opinions to myself.

I expect he, and I, would prefer that you did not try to put words in our mouths.

Like him I repeat my condolences to all those who are feeling so wretched.

(Edit note: Just as NoD has stated too)

Smoketoomuch

14th Jul 2003, 02:44

Is it just me, or is there some sort of inverse-relationship between the seriousness of the topic and the time it takes for a thread to descend into an argument?

Jet-Blast seems to be the only forum where people don't argue these days. :rolleyes:

Essell

14th Jul 2003, 04:26

No guesses please but if the names of the crew are officially released I'd be glad if someone could post them here. - thanks

quadradar

14th Jul 2003, 04:28

Well Stated Smoketoomuch ......

There are some huge egos amongst some in here ....

My sincere condolences to the families, friends and support crews involved ..... take some comfort from knowing they were doing something they loved doing on a beautiful day .....

NigelOnDraft

14th Jul 2003, 05:12

Essell...

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3061391.stm

NoD

kinsman

14th Jul 2003, 05:44

Accidents will always happen at airshows no matter how many rules you put in place. In this case the rules appear to have kept the paying public safe.

Having seen the footage it does appear to be another barrel roll gone wrong, pilot error or mechanical failure? one can only speculate at this stage. Not a good manoeuvre down near the dirt at the best of times!

Even the best pilots make mistakes but the risks are understood. Any argument in favour of stopping aerobatic displays is sad to hear! The risks are relatively small probably the most dangerous part of a disciplined display pilots day is the drive to the airport.

My best wishes to the crew’s friends and family.

undertheweather

14th Jul 2003, 06:44

Gosh, NigelonDraft, you must be a real bore at dinner parties and other social gatherings - "Nigel, what do you think about Weapons of Mass Destruction?" "I couldn't possibly comment, old chap, that would be pure speculation, and neither should you, we must all wait for the government to tell us what happened"

Now before I am flamed and monstered by you all, I am not trying to be flippant about this subject - this was a tragic accident in which two people died doing what they loved doing. Its just that this is a "Rumours & News" forum, the purpose of is to allow people to give their opinions and observations on a whole range of aviation matters.

The majority of posts in this thread have been thoughtful and lucid, and many people will have made up their own minds as to what happened yesterday, having seen the footage on television.

The investigators will no doubt get to the bottom of what happened, but I'm sure they won't be swayed by any comments here.

Dop

14th Jul 2003, 06:55

It's a tragedy that two people died doing something that they loved. It's a shame that a beautiful aeroplane has been destroyed, it must have been a terrible thing for spectators to see, and it's sad that this will give the "Planes bad, mm'kay?" bunch something else to whine about.

But to add some perspective, this Saturday more people died on the roads than in aeroplanes.

Condolences to family and friends of the people involved.

NigelOnDraft

14th Jul 2003, 14:59

Under the Weather...

I'll leave you to decide whether or not to withdraw your remark. I just cannot stand bystanders directly accusing a very recently deceased crew of Pilot Error - and any comment, as they have been doing, of "too slow" "too low" "too little RPM" is exactly that.

Comment is one thing, as some have been doing. Public accusations at people who cannot answer back is exactly what has been done to the Chinnook pilots - cheap, easy, and with no morality!

What if it had been a friend/colleague of yours (in this case I did not know the crew, but could well have done) - would have been dancing on his grave the next day as these chaps have done? Do you have no respect for the crew and their families?

NoD

TEShaw

14th Jul 2003, 15:42

A brief note of thanks to c/s Leicester 1 for his account of the Firefly crash. Many of Billy Murton's mates will be interested to hear how it all happened.

Arkroyal

14th Jul 2003, 16:10

NoD

I'm with you on both this and the Chinook.

I lost (yet another) bl00dy good friend this weekend, and the last thing I need is to read armchair investigators' theories as to how and why I'm so devastated.

My thoughts are with Bill, Kim and the kids; and with the mechanic's family. I'll wait for the experts to tell me what happened.

Rant over.

ajduf

14th Jul 2003, 16:28

To say that we are all gutted about yesterday's accident would go nowhere near how the team behind the Royal Navy Historic Flight or the Fly Navy Heritage Trust are feeling right now.

However, our hearts are with Bill & Neil's families. You are all so right - words cannot capture our emotions and feelings. We must make sure that Kim and the children know how much Bill meant to us all. Not only in the Junglie community, down at Plymouth or the numerous air shows where he would always take the time to talk (and teach) old and young alike about his passion and his infectious enthusiasm for our Fleet Air Arm heritage. As a Flight Engineer, Neil too had a zeal for the aircraft, with much of his work as part of the engineering team of the Historic Flight going seemingly unnoticed on the south side of Yeovilton.

I will endeavour to keep the Fly Navy Heritage Trust website up to date with information as and when we receive it.Fly Navy Heritage Trust

Our prayers are with you both. We will never forget you. Not only have we lost a very experienced RNHF Flight Commander and Engineer, but also two very good friends to us all at the Historic Flight.

Big Hugs

Allison Dufosee
Fly Navy Heritage Trust

Pictures too big for the page, distorting the text. They can be found by clicking here (http://www.flynavyheritage.org.uk/Bill Murton.jpg) and here (http://www.flynavyheritage.org.uk/Neil Rix.jpg)

Bill & Neil

EDIT: Alison - the link provided did not seem to work so I am providing a direct link. I trust you will not mind.

http://www.yeovilton.org.uk/Sad%20News....htm

dicksynormous

15th Jul 2003, 02:37

The usual eulogy/slaggin off forum.

The only time brit pilots from different backgrounds agree is when they are doing their atpl navs, and they all agrree the caa (rules) are a bunch of cr@p.
probably because they dont have enuff brain r.a.m. to give their egos an airing whilst learning about decca navigation.

If you have so much respect for the dead, shut the fug up. its not a competetion to be the pilot with the most condolences and technical superiority.

by all means discuss but get a grip, you cant even send your own off properly.

:*

buzz boy

15th Jul 2003, 02:54

dicksynormous

Pls get back in your shoe and have some respect.

Leicester1

15th Jul 2003, 03:24

To all forum contributors. Please accept my profuse apologies for pre-empting the results of any investigation, as some of you quite rightly point out, I should have kept those particular comments to myself - I particularly want to pass my apologies to the families of the two crewmen and anyone closely associated with RNAS Yeovilton (hopefully contributor Allison Dufosee can do this for me if thought necessary) my comments were ill judged and poorly timed.
Aside from the aforementioned the rest of my post was purely a factual re-iteration of what I sadly witnessed. I am more than a little disappointed by the churlish nature of some of the postings on this particular forum. Mentioning no names, some of you would better to divert your energies into something constructive rather than descending into virtual anarchy. Other websites have perished over this type of scenario. My lack of judgement aside (and I am not trying to sweep that under the carpet) this forum has it's place in exchanging information, observances etc. ..... it would be nice to see it used thus rather than a forum for character assasination.
Harking back to my first post, as expected the press was quickly onto the DX incident and our 'little band' of enthusiasts should be wary that several million people will have seen what they may have been fortunate to miss on pratically every mainstream TV newschannel. Us on the other hand? If we narrow it to Aeroplane & Flypast those of us that will read the results of any investigation will be a mere handful (a few tens of thousands?) in comparison to those that have read a report of the incident. How many times has the outcome of any investigation been published in the daily press to follow up their sensational headlines??

Flying Lawyer

15th Jul 2003, 03:44

Speculation in advance of the official inquiry may be inevitable but that doesn't mean it's acceptable on a public forum, especially when it suggests pilot error by someone who isn't here to defend himself.
It's particularly bad when it comes from people who aren't in a position to express an informed opinion. Dr Jekyll, like me, is only a PPL. The classic (so far) is by (edited 'a new PPL'): "I was fortunate to be at Duxford on Friday, practice day, and thought that some of the aircraft manoeuvers were being flown way too low.
Having seen the footage several times on Sky, LEICESTER 1 is almost certainly correct in his analysis." That's the same new PPL who was celebrating passing his PPL Skills Test less than a month ago. :rolleyes:

As for the 'Ban Flying Displays' and 'Fly-by Only' brigade:
It's a sad but inevitable fact of life that people will occasionally be killed flying, but it was their own free choice to fly knowing (as we all do) that the risk is there.
I've lost a number of good friends in flying accidents, Stef Karwowski, John Watts, Hoof Proudfoot, Norman Lees and Mark Hanna. Stef and Mark, were particularly close friends. Mil pilots will have lost more. But I've also lost friends motor-racing, climbing and ocean-racing. Would they ban those pursuits as well?
We live in enough of a nanny state already - the idea of more laws restricting our freedoms appals me.

Zlin526

15th Jul 2003, 03:45

Cubby,

Thank you for your most eloquent of replies... Only a few grammatical errors this time?

As for my profile, those who know me will confirm it more or less resembles me..

I'd love to refrain from reading this forum and spend more time in the air, but my employer now insists that I remain firmly on the ground trying to prevent accidents such as those which occurred on Saturday. Maybe you now see the justification behind my posts, and the reason that the useless speculation on this forum about fellow pilots, many of whom fly air displays for the love of it, annoys me so much.

Have a nice day at the controls of your MS Flight simulator..:ok:

Z526

PS Isn't nob spelt with a K?:

NigelOnDraft

15th Jul 2003, 03:48

L1 - an interesting post...!

I do not know which "camp", from your post, you put me in. However, one comment you made had me thinking...

<<as expected the press was quickly onto the DX incident and our 'little band' of enthusiasts should be wary that several million people will have seen what they may have been fortunate to miss on pratically every mainstream TV newschannel>>

In the past, this website has been quoted as a "knowledgable source" in the press - after all, it is titled the "Professional Pilots' ....". That is one reason for us all to try and be guarded in what we say, and especially speculate. Of course, in some areas where well thought out posts are made, on certain topics, this is to our advantage...

If that was your point, I apologise - I am just trying to draw it out...

NoD

Leicester1

15th Jul 2003, 04:11

NoD,

The 'use' of this forum by the press et al was certainly something far from my mind - how naive am I?? But your point is taken fairly & squarely on the chin ....... there is an undoubted die hard of types that would seize on any 'tenuous' information and I like you would not wish to give their ilk the opportunity to spread their disease to the wider (ignorant?) masses. Methinks plenty enough has been said on this particularly sad topic and Flying Lawyer has made some educated comment to bring us all back to the real point of this site.

Unwell_Raptor

15th Jul 2003, 04:43

This horrible thing happened at a public display, at this country's main centre of historic aviation.

Of course people will speculate. Millions have seen the video reports on TV.

What is so precious about this particular bulletin board that makes speculation improper here, while the rest of the populace has seen the film and heard the commentary?

Surely the whole point of PPRune is that the posts are either informed, or if they are not, then they are swiftly corrected.

Let's not be too precious here. This tragedy should be mourned and will be mourned. There will be an enquiry in due course.

Why leave analysis to the newspapers?

skeptic

15th Jul 2003, 05:36

Remember the dead as is only proper, but also remember there are thousands, nay tens of thousands of us who would do anything to have the chance to fly such an aeroplane and would happily risk all to do it, as they did.

But there are no Fireflies left.

Thats the real tragedy.

Cosmic Wind

15th Jul 2003, 05:43

Well put Raptor.

What on earth is disrespectful in discussing a very public accident on an aviation forum. Display pilots are human and do make mistakes, sadly the room for error can be limited. Anybody with even limited flying experience can see what happens when you get too slow, too low and run out of room. Sure control restrictions do happen but put some aspect of reality into the likelyhood.

Leicester1

15th Jul 2003, 05:51

Skeptic,

It is sad that this particular airframe that has been embraced by the warbird loving public in the UK has perished ......... however, there are other Fireflies left - 2 others at Yeovilton in the museum, one in the U.S in flying trim (Oshkosh Grand Champion if I am not mistaken), possibly one each in 'flyable' trim in Canada & Australia and quite a few others worldwide in various locations mainly in 'static' condition. The Swedes recently have placed two Mk.1's up for sale, both ex.-RN a/c. There is hope for the future, but quite whether the UK will ever be fortunate enough to benefit from the hard work and perseverance shown by RNHF over the past decades remains to be seen.

I have control

15th Jul 2003, 06:27

RIP to the two air crew lost on Saturday.

Yes, there was a beautifully-restored Firefly at Oshkosh last year.

I think we need to think hard about the wisdom of performing low level aerobatics in this type of airplane. It is far from being a nimble aircraft. Plus the aeros simply don't add a whole lot to the display experience. When compared to non-aerobatic displays (such as the Warbirds displays at OSH) there is very little "value added" from doing low level aeros, but a whole lot of "risk added ". I love seeing and hearing warbird aircraft doing low fast passes with the throttle wide open, but the aerobatics - I can take it or leave it.

Mzee

15th Jul 2003, 19:38

What a great shame, knew the pilot well and was only talking to him recently at an RN function about the attendant problems of flying the Swordfish as well as the Firefly.

Will be much missed and codolences to their families and the RN Heritage community.

beamer

15th Jul 2003, 23:57

Another year, another airshow, another loss of an aircraft and more importantly the loss of two people. The list of aircraft lost over the last ten years is horrendous and yet the spectators still come, the aircraft are still restored and there is no shortage of
pilots who wish to fly them.

I would however make a couple of general observations:

1. There is often exhibited a somewhat 'macho' attitude towards these incidents which usually seems to come from enthusiasts rather than air display professionals - ' the right to die doing something they loved' - 'how many died on the roads' - etc. This
is not the attitude shown by the vast majority of display pilots, some sadly gone, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting over the years.

2. I do wonder whether the 'envelope'is being pushed too far too
often. Many of the aircraft were never designed to operate in the
manner in which they are displayed - margins of error which may
have been available in combat at altitude are not the same when
flying in display mode. Comparisons which are sometimes made
to historic racing cars are fatuous as they are still performing in their natural element - ie on the racetrack. Do we expect the BBMF Lanacaster to do wingovers and rolls - it was done fifty years ago in extremis but to day - I think not; so why should vintage fighter aircraft be expected to perform low level aerobatics ? Perhaps the pressure to outperform is too great ?

No answers just sadness and yet another loss of aircrew - the loss of the aircraft is an irrelevance in comparison.

Flying Lawyer

16th Jul 2003, 01:12

U_R
PPRune's not precious. We know many contributors (like us, for example) are not professional pilots, and many aren't even pilots far less professionals. Unfortunately, journos don't draw that distinction (nor can they reasonably be expected to) when they quote from the Professional Pilots' website. They don't know or care what expertise or experience (if any) the contributor has as long as they get a good quote.
'Improper' is too strong, but there's something distasteful about blaming a dead pilot for a crash before the investigation has taken place.

Cosmic Wind
Respect for the dead might just include waiting for the investigators to complete their task before attributing blame.
True, newspapers speculate each time there's an air crash - and pilots criticise them for it. (BTW, are you/were you the owner of an F1 racing aircraft of that name?)

skeptik
Two people are dead, two families have lost their loved ones - and you think the "real" tragedy is that there are no Fireflies left? Even if that was true, which it's not, how on earth does that come even close to the loss of two lives?
Remember the dead but also remember the pipe-dreamers?? :rolleyes: If you've got the necessary skill and a genuine determination (not just a pipe-dream) to fly 'such an aeroplane', there are plenty left. Have you got to the Harvard stage yet?

beamer
Not sure I understand your first point.
It's nothing to do with 'the right to die doing something they loved.' Display pilots don't want to die in a crash, they want to die of old age like everyone else. But, they want the right to do something they love, accepting the risk they might die if something goes wrong. That's very different.
What do you think is the attitude of display pilots - based on those you've apparently met over the years?
My introduction to Warbird flying was riding around in the back of a P51 Mustang in displays (before 'they' banned it) flown by a very close friend; he'd been killed by the time I started flying displays myself. Lee Proudfoot carried on displaying after his father 'Hoof' was killed - possibly even started after, I can't remember now. Ray Hanna carried on after literally seeing his son crash (not in a display). I know Mark would have done if it had been the other way round. It so happens I'd finished displaying by then but, I would have carried on even though Mark was a very good friend.
It's not 'macho' at all, just a sad acceptance that things can go wrong and there will inevitably be fatal accidents. Military pilots often appear heartless and 'macho' when other pilots are killed, but nothing could be further from the truth; it's a way of coping.

soddim

16th Jul 2003, 02:18

Well put Flying Lawyer - for a lawyer you make far to much sense!

coopervane

16th Jul 2003, 11:04

A sad day indeed and like many posts, may I send my deepest sympathy to all the families of the two guys involved.

As I move forward in my aviation endeavours, it always makes me stop in my tracks when an event like this occurs. Many of us have flown thousands of hours without major incident and the old complacancy creeps in unseen. We take flying for granted and draw upon our skills to battle through whatever the trip holds for us.

An incident like this brings out the old addage "there for the grace of god go I" And its so true.

Stop, pause, respect and reflect. Thats all that can come out of a fatal crash.

As for the airframe? Well yes it is a sad loss too but compared to a life its just a heap of scrap. Someone somewhere will find enough bits to build another no doubt where these guys are gone forever.......the hardest thing about death.

Again my thoughts go with the families and hope th R.N. will assist them in every way possible.

Coop & sad Bear

VR-HFX

16th Jul 2003, 16:15

Flying Lawyer

Well said.

Would you have Ray Hanna's email address? If so could you kindly pm it to me.

Many thanks.

kinsman

16th Jul 2003, 16:17

Flying lawyer your post said it all! I would take issue with you on one small point; the term professional pilot is most often used to describe those of us who get paid to fly!

In my experience it more aptly describes a state of mind and I have met many so-called amateur pilots who have been very professional in their approach to aviation. I have also met a number of pilots who fly for a living who do not deserve the title professional I am sad to say.

However, your point is well made and I have commented on other threads that this site can be damaging to the industry at times. A few lazy journalists certainly quote this site as a reliable source of information, which it is not! The term professional and journalist often do not go hand in hand either!

Whatever happened at Duxford was an accident, blame is not the issue. We may never know for sure what happened, it could happen to any aviator at any time it is the nature of aviation there will always be an element of risk.

CHK Y'R 6

16th Jul 2003, 16:41

Any livestream available of the DX crash?

Flying Lawyer

16th Jul 2003, 20:19

VR-HFX

I don't think Ray has any plans to come to terms with e-mail!
I suggest you use the general e-mail address below.

The Old Flying Machine Company
Duxford Airfield
Cambridge CB2 4QR
Tel: +44 1223 836705
Fax: +44 1223 834117

E-mail: [email protected]

If you have any difficulty, I'd be happy to pass on a message but I don't think it would be right to give out his home number. Hope you understand.

PS
Any significance in your unusual username?
Cathay Convair with that reg? 1967 or 1972?

VR-HFX

16th Jul 2003, 23:06

FL

Many thanks.

I am sure he is still too busy doing interesting things to waste his time with email.

Before my time but 1972 was HFZ. 1967 was HFX..the only piece of CX kit to ever end up in the Fragrant Harbour..hence the moniker.

Best wishes

Monty Cristo

16th Jul 2003, 23:21

Leicester1, I was 500 m from the aircraft when it began to go wrong. I don't believe he was trying a barrel roll, but a climbing, steeply banked right turn. What I saw was consistent with losing the flow over one or both wings. When I saw the first 'twitch'. I thought he was intending to roll. This bothered me because the speed and height seemed insufficient. Then it went over, the nose dropped, and the rest you know. My wife believed he rolled the aircraft away from the M11 and the road where all the villagers stood, and aimed towards the empty field. This was not the first fatal I have seen, and believe me, I always hope they will be the last. Our condolences to families and friends.

Rallye Driver

17th Jul 2003, 00:45

I wasn't at Duxford on Saturday. We heard the news at North Weald soon afterwards.

I did attend on Sunday. Being in two minds about it, I decided to go as a way of paying my respects.

What did surprise me was that there was no mention of the accident whatsoever. It was as if they had never existed. What was wrong with having a minute's silence before the display began?

Hats off though, to all the pilots who carried on under difficult circumstances to complete their displays on both days.

After the appalling way the media broadcast explicit footage of the accident very shortly after it had happened and the subsequent over-the-top reporting it doesn't help the aviation's case to speculate here.

I lost a friend in the L39 accident at Duxford. The AIIB report was published last week, and could not establish a definite cause. It annoys me that the media are now trying to link two completely different sets of circumstances to imply that Duxford is somehow not a place where airshows should be held.

My condolences go out to the families of the dead crew and to all those involved in the Royal Navy Historic Flight at this time. Let's hope they don't have to endure this trauma ever again.

RD

ajduf

17th Jul 2003, 01:00

For those of you who wish to know (and I know there are many as the emails flow into the office), please follow the link to our website for information.

We are also collecting condolences via the website which will be passed on to both families in due course.

Allison Dufosee
Fly Navy Heritage Trust

Arrangements for Bill & Neil (http://www.flynavyheritage.org.uk/Sad%20News....htm)

Flying Lawyer

17th Jul 2003, 02:48

Rallye Driver

The AIIB didn't find the direct cause of the apparent brake failure in the L39 crash - the investigators were unable to reproduce the problem - but the comments about certain aspects were as critical (restrained AAIB style) as I've ever seen in an AAIB Report.

I agree it's entirely wrong for the media to use either incident to suggest Duxford isn't safe. There's no basis for such criticism in the L39 Report.

If anyone's interested, click the link is below. It's worth reading.

AAIB Report into L39 accident at Duxford (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_022817.hcsp)

Buster the Bear

17th Jul 2003, 04:34

They let me out to attend the Legends on Sunday.

I was horrfied that there was no mention of the loss of life that had occured the previous day. I had seen the Firefly heading east from my vantage point on its way to Duxford on Saturday at around 3000ft, it crossed the M1 close to Jct 12 at Toddington.

The show passed off without a hitch, but a few moments reflecting on the Firefly crash and remembering the 2 crew who gave thier lives for the gratification of the public, I am sure, would have been welcomed by all at the show, most of whom had either witnessed the crash first hand, or more probably seen the events on SKY news.

I sat next to a chap who had witnessed the crash the previous day, he fully expected a tribute to the crew, sadly Duxford decided to sweep the events of Saturday under the carpet.

The camo Westland over the crash site taking photo's was the only indication that a tragedy had occured.

Ironic how the PA voice of the day was full of praise for our lost heros from WW2.

All in all, a very strange reaction from IWM.

Brilliant display and the Wildcat sounds like the noise from my rear end following a fish eating binge! Phut, Phut, Phut!

2 JU52's in formation, what a sight!

Unwell_Raptor

17th Jul 2003, 05:28

"After the appalling way the media broadcast explicit footage of the accident very shortly after it had happened"

Appalling? An accident in a public place at a public display? Are you suggesting censorship?

What about the Shuttle disasters? Or F1 accidents? Or any number of tragedies?

A tragedy has happened, but there is no case at all for criticising the media for reporting it, as soon as they could, and as best they could.

PilotsPal

17th Jul 2003, 06:16

Had it been a member of my family who died in such circumstances on Saturday, unexpectedly seeing such explicit images of the impact on television within a few hours would be deeply upsetting. I think that's what RD was meaning.

Unwell_Raptor

17th Jul 2003, 06:31

Of course it's upsetting, PP. My point is that there are no grounds for censoring the report, apart from the usual policy of not showing harrowing pictures of the victims themselves.

moggie

17th Jul 2003, 16:28

Whilst I am saddened by the deaths of the two guys onboard the Firefly, I am more saddened that those deaths should occur doing something as stupid as low level aerobatics in historic aeroplanes.

Leaving aside the fact that the aeroplane is probably irreplaceable (it is only an aeroplane, after all, and the lives of the aircrew are infinitely more valuable), has no-one learned from the accidents that we have seen over the years?

The P38 crash at Duxford a couple of years back was a classic example. These machines are NOT like modern aeroplanes and you can NOT take liberties with them. Most of the public would just be happy to see such machines in the air - a high speed, high power flypast with a Merlin/Griffin growling, followed by a nice, gentle wingover and another pass is enough for these museum pieces.

Leave the aeros to the Pitts and Zlins - they are designed for it

Rallye Driver

17th Jul 2003, 19:17

Unwell Raptor

I'm not advocating censorship. The point that PP made was exactly what I was meaning.

From posts on other bulletin boards, it is clear that the footage was passed on to the news organisations without the knowledge or agreement of the camera crew, who as sub-contractors did not own the rights to the footage. It is also quite possible it was broadcast before the next of kin were informed.

To me this is unacceptable. Report the news - yes - but in a way that is sensitive to the feelings of the next of kin and allows the dead some dignity. Sensationalism just breeds further sensationalism and creates a totally false impression with the public.

RD

DamienB

17th Jul 2003, 20:07

RD is right - the footage aired a mere 35 minutes after the crash, having been sold by Red Admiral Productions (the company filming the airshow) to Sky and other TV channels. Personally I hope Red Admiral are never allowed on an airfield ever again - it's simply despicable to sell such footage before next of kin have even been informed. In the past any such footage has generally gone straight to the AAIB, not sold immediately to TV in order to line some scumbag's pocket. I've made a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Commission anyway, for what good it may do. It would not have hurt Sky etc. to wait for the relatives to be informed before broadcasting such graphic footage over and over again overlaid with ill-informed comment.

As for doing aeros - if any of the people complaining about unsuitable manouevres in the Firefly had actually seen its display you would know it was one of gentler routines, very much in the mould of how the BBMF show off their aircraft. My impression on Saturday was that it did seem to be going a little slower than normal however - and it was a very hot day; I have no end of photos ruined by heat haze even when the subject was at several hundred feet - I've never seen that before, normally over about 50 feet and the air is clear enough for photos.

Anne.Nonymous

18th Jul 2003, 01:49

Further to my earlier post, I would just like to add a word of agreement with NOD, RallyeDriver and DamienB.

There will be time enough to digest the findings of the RN Inquiry and the AAIB when it is published; in the meantime why not limit the comments to those you might have said to the crew if they were still with us. I am sure a person with the ink drying on their PPL might have been more circumspect if they were talking face to face.

Anne ;)

EyesToTheSkies

18th Jul 2003, 02:02

Rallye Driver,

I wasn't present on Sat or Sun, but I'd agree that a minute silence would've been appropriate. On the same day that David Moore died at Woodford in '92, there was a minute silence before the show restarted, and the Red Arrows display was dedicated to David's memory. To this day, I still remember how moved I was by the total silence of the thousands in the crowd, and how much more appreciative I was of the Reds display given the risks they take when displaying for us.

On the other hand, the organisers at Duxford may be forgiven if they felt that it was not appropriate at the time.

Eyes.

ID90

18th Jul 2003, 02:32

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here...
For sure this was a tragedy for everyone concerned and obviously a disaster for the families of the two guys killed, - my heart goes out to them.
However, I can't believe that people think that the TV stations shouldn't be showing the accident until the families concerned have been informed.
Remember September 11? Around 3000 people were murdered that day - should it have been kept off the world's TV screens until all families had been informed?
I agree that selling the video tape for profit is a bad thing, but you can't blame the TV channels....
Before you ask, no I don't work for any of them.

broadreach

18th Jul 2003, 09:54

This has become an impressive discussion thread and one I would hope the two men who died in the accident would approve of.

I’m sure anyone here would endorse Flying Lawyer’s comment about preferring to die of old age. The same applies to anything that would improve safety for for us or others in situations where risk is involved. Short, perhaps, of the total nanny state where we’re all confined to the sofa. Usually little things, the importance of which seems to increase as one advances in age. On a boat or an old aircraft it might be a doubler or an extra rivet – or one’s sensitivity to the importance of energy, as several have already mentioned. Or, for example, as in the case of the Shorts ditching at Edinburgh, a little thing like loosening the overhead escape hatch fastenings prior to hitting the water. There just can’t be enough of that and I am tempted to think that part of the measure of professionalism in anything is the sheer pleasure one takes in actually being able to remember all those little things.

Perhaps I have a problem defining respect for the deceased. But if you put a clamp on speculation now, while there are people around who actually saw what happened, aren’t you stifling the very essence of learning from accidents? I would hope that most of us, whatever we do, would not expect to be excused from judgement by our peers because we had died while doing something risky. If anything, most of us would probably expect a warmer than normal roasting; that in itself is part of the risk. Our actions might, or might not, be vindicated in the subsequent accident report. But most accident reports take months; should a community of peers just shut the issue out of its minds for the interim, as if the accident had never happened? I think that’s the absolute opposite of what should happen.

No matter what one does to minimise it, risk remains pretty much a constant. In boats, if I’m pitchpoled and look a fool, there will loads of laughs at my expense and a dozen different opinions as to how I could/should have avoided it. I will have deserved it and – if I’m not taking myself too seriously on the day – I’ll be laughing at myself just as heartily. If I happen to thump my head on the mast and drown in the process, the laughter will be muted but the opionions will still be around – probably even more vehemently.

If you pogo-stick a Stearman three quarters of the way down the runway on your third landing in type but still manage to get back to the apron intact, you’ll be the butt of all jokes for half an hour and will hear as many different opinions on landing techniques as there are people in the club bar. And If you flip it and bump your head? About the same proportion of mourning but the opinions and discussion are still there.

I really don’t think it’s disrespectful of the dead to speculate. On the contrary, it is trying to learn from their mishaps, but without the pleasure of having them around to share the experience. It’s certainly not a question of laying blame.

John Farley

18th Jul 2003, 16:23

I really don’t think it’s disrespectful of the dead to speculate. On the contrary, it is trying to learn from their mishaps, but without the pleasure of having them around to share the experience. It’s certainly not a question of laying blame.

Well said broadreach, especially when the speculation comes from informed practitioners of low level displays.

Alty Meter

18th Jul 2003, 19:55

The posts by broadreach and Flying Lawyer are two of the best so far even though they have different opinions on the 'public forum' aspect.
If this was a discussion between warbird pilots in a Duxford crew-room, I'd see no problem with it for all the very good reasons Broadreach gave. However, if the same discussion took place in the Duxford public canteen with every Tom, Dick and Harry joining in, I'd take a very different view.
I don't think a public forum is a good place to discuss it, but my real objection is to people who don't come even close to the category John Farley described as "informed practitioners of low level displays" giving their uninformed opinions. Free speech and all that, but I think it would be more respectful of the dead if they just read and learned.

KERDUNKER

19th Jul 2003, 02:24

Moggie says "leave the low level aeros to the Zlins and Pitses" correct me if I am wrong but arent some of those a/c forty years old and I think also they to occasionally crash!!!

I witnessed the accident and also flew over the field this a.m. both events very emotive. Condolences to all involved.

soddim

19th Jul 2003, 03:35

Alty Meter - take your points but if you display in public and crash in public every tom dick and harry is bound to discuss it - that is not being disrespectful it is merely their reaction to what they saw. You do not need to be an informed display pilot to comment on what you saw. I do, however, agree that opinions on the actions of those involved are quite likely to be considered offensive.

I am an ex-display pilot with relevant type experience and I have been informed by this thread - not just from those you consider entitled to an opinion but also from the general public who saw what happened and gave their opinions. It is not only display pilots who recognise speed or lack of it, nose attitude or roll direction and it is not only display pilots who witness accidents and provide evidence to the board. Let us not stifle the airing of information but do all we can to protect the interests of those who perished.

Neil Porter

19th Jul 2003, 04:12

I would just like to add my sincere condolences to the families of Bill Murton & Neil Rix.
Having seen the Firefly routine twice this year, i thought it was nice & gentle , one maybe other pilots may like to adopt when flying WW2 aircraft as these are not modern combat types some may fly day to day & fear that there will be more crashes i (god forbid) in the near future if the routines performed by some are not tamed abit.

I saw the whole thing happen from the road near the village on the hill, was busy filming the Firefly coming towards me when i suddenely realised as soon as the Firefly went inverted & saw the nose coming down & pointing more or less in the area where i was standing, I ran like hell.
I remember glancing up quickly whilst running to see if i was going to die or may have a chance of surviving, for it to pass very low & slightly to one side of me & crash approx 200ft / 250ft behind me into the cornfield!

Very very scary, definetly a close call & it took me a day to realise just how lucky i was.

My statement / Video film is now with the AAIB.

Buster the Bear

19th Jul 2003, 05:45

Sadly, a lot of folk attend air shows simply for the potential horrors and the pilots displaying know full well that if they crash or perish, the footage will be beamed around the globe rapidly. I bet all of the pilots in the displays last weekend would not have pulled out of flying their fantastic planes for fear of sensationalist journalism and folk attending selling footage to the TV?

You cannot censor news, but those sending out the stories to our TV's and PC's are to blame, not Mrs Buster selling footage of an incident, for if there was not a market for such footage........

Aerobatic like displays of vintage aircraft with elements of G-Force from a personal opinion, should be banned.

WW2 aircraft were designed with a shelf life of 60-90 days. I hope they last another 60-90 years at least. All folk want is to see them flown safely for many years to come and I am not saying that the Firefly was in any way unsafely flown on Saturday.

I am sickened at yet another major accident that Yeovilton has to endure.

Yet another irreplaceable airframe and certainly another two irreplaceable lives. Luckily (?) the stalwarts that truly adore the aircraft are very saddened and VERY shocked.

The fact is that whilst folk preserve and fly old airframes, there is a chance that Joe Public will witness a catastrophic event, Uncle Buster saw the wings fold back on the 'Spirit' at Coventry earlier this year, and has he stated, the show continued on 30 min later, just as it did at Duxford.

20 years ago the show's would have been cancelled following such an incident in respect, but that was 20 years ago!

After all, money rules now, Auntie Gertrude would want her money back if the organisers cancelled the show prior to its conclusion on the basis of an aviation tragedy?

PaperTiger

19th Jul 2003, 05:51

Sadly, a lot of folk attend air shows simply for the potential horrors Any source, research or other remotely credible basis for such a preposterous statement ? IME crashes turn the punters away, and the ghouls can get their joliies from TV at 6 (and 7 and 9 and 10) anyway.:*

excrewingbod

19th Jul 2003, 07:26

Firstly my sincere condolences to the families of Bill Murton and Neil Rix.

I was there on Saturday and the Firefly display was, upto the accident, very sedate, yet people still keep talking as if the display was full of 'extreme g-pulling' maneuvers. The only extreme maneuver was when they tried to recover from the situation, which was the only bit of flying by the Firefly, that appeared to be screened by the media.

In fact the display appeared to be exactly as many would seem to wish to see for a/c of that vintage, nice gentle flypast down the display line, etc.

As for 'a lot of folk' going to airshows to 'see the potential horrors' what complete and utter nonsense. I've lost count of the airshows/displays I've attended over the past 20+ years and this was the first time I've had the unfortunate experience of witnessing an accident/incident of any kind. If someone is that unhinged, they could have a damn long time to wait and end up spending a fortune to see, what is, a very RARE event!

AdamUK

2nd Aug 2003, 04:33

Having read the various posts on here, and especially the contribution from Flying Lawyer, I have retracted the comments I made. On reflection, they were insensitive to the family and friends of the deceased, and really those of us who so inexperienced in such matters, should refrain from passing judgement.

Apologies to all concerned.

BeauMan

3rd Aug 2003, 09:29

I've wrestled with this one for a while. When the Firefly went in, I was doing solo touch and goes in the Cambridge circuit, with a beautiful - if distant - view of warbirds cavorting around in their natural element.

Still haven't quite come to terms with the fact that they died a few short miles from where I was happily doing my thing. Two far more experienced aviators than I will ever be. It's not right.

But every time I saw the footage - and god knows it was shown incessantly that night - I thought it was an avoidable accident. The extent of the coverage was disgusting, the timing of the footage ill-judged, but I still got the same feeling every time it was shown. Too low, too slow, too indicisive.

A crying shame, and for anyone who feels my words are harsh, believe me, I HAVE shed tears over this.

The only thing I wanted to add to the discussion was a comment to Neil Porter.

Quote.

"I saw the whole thing happen from the road near the village on the hill, was busy filming the Firefly coming towards me when i suddenely realised as soon as the Firefly went inverted & saw the nose coming down & pointing more or less in the area where i was standing, I ran like hell.
I remember glancing up quickly whilst running to see if i was going to die or may have a chance of surviving, for it to pass very low & slightly to one side of me & crash approx 200ft / 250ft behind me into the cornfield!

Very very scary, definetly a close call & it took me a day to realise just how lucky i was."

If you'd have been taken out by the Firefly, you would have been the first public airshow casualty in the UK since 1952. Purely through your own bloody stupid actions in standing under the display area. Thereby resulting in media calls for airshows to be banned, and the very aircraft you purport to adore being grounded. Think about it, muppet. :mad:

PPRuNe Radar

3rd Aug 2003, 09:35

BeauMan

If you'd have been taken out by the Firefly, you would have been the first public airshow casualty in the UK since 1952. Purely through your own bloody stupid actions in standing under the display area.

Let's be fair .... how can any display organiser, first of all ban anyone from being under the display area ??

Secondly, do they actually publish this 'display area' to everyone who may be affected or anyone who might be in the vicinity so that they know to not carry out bloody stupid actions, by driving along the M11 for example ?? ;)

DOC.400

3rd Oct 2003, 21:25

Just been searching the AAIB site -has a report been completed yet?

DOC

JW411

3rd Oct 2003, 22:04

The Firefly was a military aircraft flown by a military crew. I would have thought that the accident would be the subject of a Board of Inquiry rather than an AAIB investigation?

DOC.400

4th Oct 2003, 01:02

OK, so has the Board of Enquiry report been finalised yet?

DOC

Zlin526

4th Oct 2003, 02:45

Pprune Moderator,

Let's be fair .... how can any display organiser, first of all ban anyone from being under the display area ??

It's impossible to sterilise the area under a Flying Display off-airfield. CAA Permissions given to displaying pilots state that the aircraft "shall not fly over buildings or vessels which the commander belieives to contain persons", or words to that effect. So at Little Migginton village fete, the displaying aircraft shouldn't be flying over the local WI hall..

On an airfield, things are different.. The Live side of the Flying Display can be cleared of all unnecessary persons. Take Duxford as an example. ALL visiting aircraft are parked under the display, but all the occupants MUST retire to behind the crowd barrier during the display. If there is an accident, then the live side is designed to contain the impact to an area that is as far as possible, free of people, and will not involve the publis who have paid to watch.

Those cheapskate freeloaders who gather on the southern boundary at Duxford, are normally warned by the Police that they are in a risky position, and the landowner has a duty of care to those people in the event that one of them gets an aeroplane parked on his/her head, especially if he charges them. But they have a right to be there and cannot be moved.

DOC400,

The results of Military Boards of Inquiry are not released to us civilian types..

DOC.400

4th Oct 2003, 03:39

Tks for feedback Zlin.

DOC

Runaway Gun

6th Oct 2003, 04:38

But every time I saw the footage - and god knows it was shown incessantly that night - I thought it was an avoidable accident. The extent of the coverage was disgusting, the timing of the footage ill-judged, but I still got the same feeling every time it was shown. Too low, too slow, too indicisive.

Sorry BeauMan, but if you can figure the cause of the accident through viewing one piece of video footage before the board comes up with their findings, you are in the wrong job.

It's all too easy to jump to this type of conclusion. It's a bit too bloody insensitive in my book.

daithespy

7th Oct 2003, 13:53

I'd like to add my tu'ppence-worth to this sad subject. I have been Nimrod (NCO) Aircrew since 1982, and have 4,500 hours on type. Back in the 80's and 90's if your crew was selected to be the "display" crew for that year, you just did it. The flight deck had a few weeks of instruction from the CFI (usually George Morris...) and the back end, min crew of four, just got on with it. There was no discussion of not wanting to, you just took your turn within the rest of the crew.

I did two seasons, separated by a couple of years. The first season for me ended in Fairford when my Captain almost killed us twice in the same display, due to the pressure to outperform other displays (yes, even in a Nimrod). Even now my blood runs cold thinking about looking out the beam window with low airspeed and the ground far too close, getting closer. It was the last display I flew, as I'd had enough. I refused point-blank to fly any more.

A couple of years later, again my crew was chosen for the job. My refusal to fly didn't go down well at all, and I was treated as a bit of a wimp, but I didn't care, it was a personal decision and I am still happy with it. The first display of the year was in Whidbey Island, Washington State, and they threatened not to take me along because of my "truculence". Eventually they relented, and I went along on the trip, but didn't fly any displays.

The Nimrod was taxiing out for its pre-display practice, when an A6 Intruder with two on board ploughed into the woods off the front starboard quarter, 400 yards away. The two pilots, starboard beam and Aeo all witnessed the accident. They turned around, taxied back and shut down. My decision not to fly was then re-evaluated by some on board.

And then we come to that awful, awful moment when the 120 crew were filmed killing themselves in Toronto's waterfront. Again, pilot (and, it transpired, corporate) error. Seven friends and acquaintances dead.

What we do as military aviators is intrinsically dangerous. I accept the risk, but only in the line of reasonable need. If I die somewhere in a storm at 20W trying to save a life, no one will be videoing the incident for my family to agonise over. Shot down over Iraq? All in the line of duty, no problem. My death would not have been pointless. Killed while entertaining a crowd, and the incident re-run the whole evening on the box? No thanks.

Am I against air displays? Well, no. But I am against the culture of every pilot trying to out-do every other, which is as sure as day follows night. Somewhere along the line there has to be a concerted effort to change this culture within the display world, at least when there are other crew members aboard who have no control over their lives during that five-minute period when they are on display, for I am sure many of them do not know the risks they take.

BEagle

7th Oct 2003, 14:30

Which is why I'd far sooner watch the BBMF or a Shuttleworth display than most of the 'warbird' displays...

Have seen several close calls over the years; a CF-18 at Abbotsford that missed the ground by 17ft on the AoA limit, a F-111 at Alconbury which started its display with the wing at the wrong sweep angle and got into severe wing rock, a Jetstream at Leuchars which nearly planted itself on the RW - but staggered back to Finningley instead......

A fast, low pass, a few gentle manoeuvres flown with grace - fine. A full power take-off into a constant angle (pitch and roll) climbing turn by a heavy at lightweight - fine. But a barrel roll too low and too slow in an unforgiving and rare old beast - no thanks.

And sorry, but I'm not particularly fond of coloured smoke displays. Far sooner that particular budget was spent on keeping a historic aircraft or few airborne. 9 Hawks or one each of Harvard, Provost, Meteor, Vampire, Gnat, Hunter.....? I'd prefer the latter. Saw JN at a Swedish air display on Disco Wings the other night -the Swedish AF seems to have preserved every post war Swedish jet in flying condition - J29, Lansen, Draken, Viggen - probably got a Hunter and who knows what else in store somewhere!

Man-on-the-fence

7th Oct 2003, 14:36

Beags

Sounds like you need to get to Shuttleworth pronto.:ok:

DamienB

7th Oct 2003, 19:09

daithespy - what's the reasoning behind the full crew being on board for the Nimrod display? They surely can't all be essential to a 5-10 minute bit of flying? I know there are no MoD rules to forbid it (unlike the CAA's restrictions on civvy display acts) but do they require the full crew on board or are they there because they want to be?

Jackonicko

7th Oct 2003, 20:41

Dai the Spy:

"The flight deck had a few weeks of instruction from the CFI....."

Over the year's I've witnessed a host of airshow accidents, few of them involving pilots whose primary role was display flying.

One cannot help but wonder whether the amount of time and number of flying hours devoted to type display preparation and practise is usually adequate. When it comes to displaying a historic type - or indeed any type that isn't your day-to-day aeroplane, is sufficient time allocated to type conversion and maintaining currency?

I can see the temptation to think that because a chap is (or has been) a highly skilled and capable competent operator in (say) the Sea Harrier, then displaying (say) the Firefly should hardly stretch him.

But while flying the Firefly (with sufficient instruction and practise) should be straightforward, should anyone expect that pilot to be able to display it, in public, at low level, at an unfamiliar aerodrome, before he has gained a wealth of experience on that class of aircraft and on that specific type?

Back in 1950, the Squadron ace who would have displayed the Firefly at the RNAS Ford air display (say) would have been flying the type for months, and would have 'filled his boots' with flying time. Before flying the Firefly he'd probably have flown some similar type, and he'd have amassed hours and hours on Harvards.

Today's Firefly display pilot's relevant flying hours are likely to be considerably more modest, and yet he will probably try to fly a very similar display routine.

I'm also inclined to question whether it was sensible or necessary to fly the aircraft 'two up'. The sight of Don Bullock taking however many people with him in the A-26 made me nervous about displays flown with supernumaries on board, and countless accidents since then (Vintage Pair at Mildenhall) should surely have reinforced the lesson.

If there is a reason to fly with extra crew (the Swordfish would look 'empty') and if the risks are minimal, then perhaps there is a case. But was it necessary for the Firefly to fly with the rear seat occupied by more than ballast?

tonybliar

7th Oct 2003, 22:37

The question whether or not display pilots get enough practise is relevant only when the display demands skills not normally exercised by the individual. It is normally possible to put together a display sequence that will adequately demonstrate the aircraft to the public without adding manoeuvres requiring excessive practise; however, some people are not content with that and want to impress more. They therefore need to practise more.

Beagle's point about enjoying BBMF despite the fact that their displays are much more constrained and potentially less impressive than their civilian counterparts is relevant here. The flight has been able for years now to fly a very full season of displays with only a reasonable amount of practise and little fatigue on the aircraft. Long may they continue to impress without wasting people or machines.

daithespy

7th Oct 2003, 23:55

Hi DamienB, in answer to your question about the number on board the Nimrod during displays, the breakdown is:

two pilots
one engineer
one navigator
one Radar operator (which must be switched on during flight, unless the scanner is wired up, which clearly is impractical when away from base with the minimum of groundcrew)
One other person (for reasons of safety, believe it or not - should a fire break out or the back end fill with smoke, one person (radar op) would immediately investigate the underfloor areas, backed up by the spare aircrew member on the portable O2 bottle.

During the Toronto flight there were seven on board, I think. This was normal, and is because the pilots feel safer if the beam windows are manned too, as there are extra pairs of eyes when flying in a crowded piece of sky.

The normal compliment is (was) 13, comprising the three on the flight deck, two navigators, an AEO, three Acoustic operators and four "Dry" (above surface) sensor operators. Recently because of manning problems this has had to be reduced to 12.

Although the RAF is not bound by the CAA regulations regarding supernumary crew during displays, it does in fact comply with it, at least here in the "kipper fleet".

As for near misses, I saw the Frecci Tricolori the season before they had their horrendous crash, in a little airfield in Belgium called Kleine Brogel. They did their "reverse starburst" (a bit like the Reds' one-on-one, but involving the entire formation), starting high for the crossovers, and getting lower as each pair near-missed each other with what looked like only vertical separation. The last pair were so low, one of them had to bunt over the wing of the parked Nimrod to make it, almost knocking the Chief off his perch. They then formated, engaged smoke, and came down the runway at a VERY low height, the plan being to peel off one by one and land in turn...except the had not noticed there was no wind and they had just blacked the runway for 10 minutes until the red, white and green smoke eventually cleared!

At the same display, and as God is my witness, I saw this with my own eyes, an F16 pilot taxied out to do his display, stopped abeam the beer tent, climbed out (with engine still thrusting), ran over to the tent, downed a full half liter of beer, climbed back into the jet and did his display!

That's what I mean about peer competitiveness in the aircrew enclosure - it is fierce. Who on earth could top that? I'm glad we didn't have to fly a display on that day.

Jackonicko

8th Oct 2003, 00:12

Tony

"The question whether or not display pilots get enough practise is relevant only when the display demands skills not normally exercised by the individual."

Surely any display in a 1940s heavy, high-powered piston fighter demands different (just different, not superior) skills to those normally exercised by any current, serving military pilot?

Surely no wise professional pilot should want to undertake a display in an aircraft with which he was not completely and intimately familiar? How many hours of conversion and working down a display to display height is required to gain this level of familiarity?

Even a very benign display consisting of little more than flybys and wingovers is being flown at airshow height, and should not be flown by someone who is not thoroughly familiar with the aircraft, its limits, and its handling characteristics.

I'd have thought that to display a wartime fighter type of aircraft safely, a pilot should have a thorough grounding in a heavy piston trainer (a Harvard or a Provost, say) of perhaps 20 hours GH and aeros, with a further 12 hours GH (not transit) on type before working a display down to airshow altitude. That might seem over-cautious, but I don't think that less than six hours, including transit flying, is nearly enough.

PPRuNe Pop

8th Oct 2003, 01:52

This is very vexed question. It certainly requires the need for really experienced people but what can be perceived here is a trial by jury to see who is the better. The fact is there ain't no such thing! Unless you want a 'ghoul watching display'.

Jacko mentioned Don Bullock. That is actually a case in point. It was not a question of supernumaries being on board. It was DB responding to a call of 'can I come along?' He took 6 good people with him - some I knew personally. He asked me if I would like to go along as I stood alongside him at briefing!! I would have said NO anyway, but as it happened I was next in the display sequence. I clearly recall him asking for an extra "two mintues" of the Display Director, Simon Ames, who queried it. DB argued that he needed it to execute a barrel roll at the end of his display. The DD refused but DB did the barrel roll anyway - straight into the bottom of the valley at Biggin. It was damn near criminal in my view.

It was not much fun following that, but I did my 5 minutes - and made a few phone calls when I landed.

An aeroplane full of people in a display is an ABSOLUTE no no! Indeed, no one other than the required crew should be on board. It is sheer madness to do otherwise. The end result has often been that some innocents had their lives ended prematurely.

Sadly there have been a few pilots who were an accident waiting to happen. I guess it might remain that way.

Reichman

8th Oct 2003, 03:50

A lot of good observations about display flying on this thread. Just a couple of my own (opinions) as a display pilot:

The display should be tailored to the aircraft. There is little point in doing graceful wingovers and flybys in an Extra 300, but it looks fantastic when done by a Spitfire. F16/18 etc turn tight, lots of g, lots of power, looks good slow or fast, but the Tornado wouldn't look good trying to copy it.

Unusual or unique aircraft should be shown off to the crowd from as many angles as possible, not a lot of point in wazzing past at 500kts on the deck - but an F4? Awesome.

The BBMF do a good display and show the aircraft off well, it's just 10 minutes too long. I've seen a Harvard flick rolled at the top of a loop; didn't look impressive to your average spotter as it goes round so slow - chuffing dangerous though (yes, I've displayed them).

A Mustang, fast flybys and wingovers, with the gun ports uncovered. Looks good, sounds good. Would look crap doing a slow speed pass with the gear and flaps down. looks good when a really big jet does it though.

Reichman

tonybliar

8th Oct 2003, 06:28

Jacko

You're not too far off the mark but it would be pointless to define too closely how many hours one needs to display a big piston - or anything else for that matter. Some catch on quickly and others take longer. Some are naturals and others more mechanical. It is much more important that the individual stays well within his and the aircrafts' limitations and that he has the right temperament for a display pilot.

Unfortunately, we have lost far too many old and irreplaceable aircraft on the display circuit and it does seem that some pilots think they can fly them without much training simply because they are slower than their regular steeds. However, all aircraft bite fools and the old aircraft bite more often and more easily.

Reichman

If the BBMF display is 10 minutes too long for you, take a break next time they display whilst everybody else enjoys them.

Jackonicko

8th Oct 2003, 06:35

I'd rather have over-cautious minima for training hours on type and on class, even if some pilots thereby gained more experience than was strictly necessary, than to see the present situation continue.

And however quickly someone 'picks things up', six hours on type is NEVER enough to fly a public display at airshow altitude.

BEagle

8th Oct 2003, 06:59

If you think that a BBMF display is too long, the Pink Tarts and their coloured smoke seems like an eternity........

And as for the Thunderturkeys...

Reichman

8th Oct 2003, 06:59

Tonybliar

You're right about the BBMF. I'll just have to stare at the totty in the crowd for the last ten minutes. But I did say it was my opinion.

Jacko

Unfortunately civilian owners/operators do not have the luxury of unlimited budgets with which to give lots of hours in training to display pilots. I've never had anything like 6 hours on type before displaying an aircraft (not many have). It's up to the pilot to know his limits. Everyone knows the results when they don't.
The CAA display authorising system works well. There will always be crashes when aircraft are taken out of the hangar. It was sad when the Me109 was confined to the museum following it's unfortunate accident. But I, and countless others, got to see it fly for a number of years and it brought great pleasure. I feel more sad to see aircraft out of their natural environment - airborne.

Reichman