Re-visiting the 1999 Hawk 200 Crash
Thread Starter
Re-visiting the 1999 Hawk 200 Crash
I'd like to hear the thoughts of experienced pilots, especially Hawk qualified pilots, on the chain of events that led to Graham Wardell's tragic death while displaying a Hawk 200 in 1999.
A video of the event is linked here:
And the summary of the crash investigation findings determined that:
========================================
"On 6 June 1999, a BAE Hawk 200 aircraft crashed during SIAD '99 air show at M. R. Štefánik Airport, Bratislava (BTS/LZIB: co-ordinates 48°10′12″N, 017°12′46″E). Top British test pilot Graham Wardell was killed in Slovakia after his Aerospace Hawk 200 military jet came down during aerobatics.
The plane exploded when its wing hit the ground after failing to pull out of a low turn at a show at the Milan Rastislav Stefanik airport in Bratislava; the test pilot entered a barrel roll too low, the roll was too tight, and the exit speed was too fast, and at the wrong angle.
ZJ201 suffered a high speed stall, struck the ground and bounced clipping a building, killing a woman spectator. It bounced again and finally struck the ground and was destroyed. The pilot did not eject and was also killed".
========================================
The strange "pitch" wobble just prior to the crash never looked quite right to me - was there ever a suggestion of control failure, "pilot error" is always the easiest, but not always the most just verdict.
A video of the event is linked here:
And the summary of the crash investigation findings determined that:
========================================
"On 6 June 1999, a BAE Hawk 200 aircraft crashed during SIAD '99 air show at M. R. Štefánik Airport, Bratislava (BTS/LZIB: co-ordinates 48°10′12″N, 017°12′46″E). Top British test pilot Graham Wardell was killed in Slovakia after his Aerospace Hawk 200 military jet came down during aerobatics.
The plane exploded when its wing hit the ground after failing to pull out of a low turn at a show at the Milan Rastislav Stefanik airport in Bratislava; the test pilot entered a barrel roll too low, the roll was too tight, and the exit speed was too fast, and at the wrong angle.
ZJ201 suffered a high speed stall, struck the ground and bounced clipping a building, killing a woman spectator. It bounced again and finally struck the ground and was destroyed. The pilot did not eject and was also killed".
========================================
The strange "pitch" wobble just prior to the crash never looked quite right to me - was there ever a suggestion of control failure, "pilot error" is always the easiest, but not always the most just verdict.
Thread Starter
Just a desire to gain a better understanding of what happened, why it happened, at what point the maneuver went wrong, and how the resultant crash could have been avoided.
The only other Hawk (T1) LL barrel roll crash I am aware of was NMacC's in January 1988.It may be of use.
Aircraft by type
There was quite a bit of detail about how the manoevre was flown in the original accident report, if you can get hold of it, but I cannot remember that detail now.
Aircraft by type
There was quite a bit of detail about how the manoevre was flown in the original accident report, if you can get hold of it, but I cannot remember that detail now.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Way East
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-visiting the 1999 Hawk 200 Crash
I was stood next to my jet watching this live in Bratislava. It was horrendous to watch such a nice chap lose his life having been chatting to him just beforehand.
I have a few Hawk hours and sadly have to agree with the high speed stall theory - the wing rock you see (and the rumble i heard while watching) is typical of the Hawk at high AoA in heavy buffet. On the day the wind was much stronger than the practise the day before; not sure if this may have affected his sight picture at the top of any manoeuvres by being in a different position over the runway??
I have a few Hawk hours and sadly have to agree with the high speed stall theory - the wing rock you see (and the rumble i heard while watching) is typical of the Hawk at high AoA in heavy buffet. On the day the wind was much stronger than the practise the day before; not sure if this may have affected his sight picture at the top of any manoeuvres by being in a different position over the runway??
Graham Wardell had survived a previous accident back in 1979, on the 18th July. 14 Sqn Jaguar XX960 hit a TV mast in poor weather removing the entire wing assembly, Graham ejected and was very lucky to survive. I believe the location was Iserlohn, Germany.
The following users liked this post:
Only my opinion, but it looked like he was too low (possibly a missed "gate") at the top of the last manoeuvre and had insufficient altitude to pull out. It looks like he was pulling very hard at the end there, possibly having realised he was too low/too nose down. Possibly not recoverable.
I agree with Craven, it looks like he then pulled too hard, causing the stall symptoms, but I don't think that was the cause of the crash, he was already too low/fast/steep. Step back to the start of that last manoeuvre and not pulling up enough and there's the point it started to go wrong. It may have been possible to abort the manoeuvre up to the point where he commits nose low. After that it was all history.
Hadn't really thought about this one for a long time. Just my thoughts as you asked for them. So very sad to lose a good man.
I agree with Craven, it looks like he then pulled too hard, causing the stall symptoms, but I don't think that was the cause of the crash, he was already too low/fast/steep. Step back to the start of that last manoeuvre and not pulling up enough and there's the point it started to go wrong. It may have been possible to abort the manoeuvre up to the point where he commits nose low. After that it was all history.
Hadn't really thought about this one for a long time. Just my thoughts as you asked for them. So very sad to lose a good man.
CL's crash (Phantom at Abingdon 1988) was IIRC influenced by having to extend upwind at the top of a LL display loop. NMacC's crash was (again IIRC) possibly recoverable in his previous aircraft (Lightning) but not in the Hawk.
Both of these may be relevant after Craven's notes.
Both of these may be relevant after Craven's notes.
I was also standing next to my jet watching this on that day. It looks like he flies a "loaded roll" as he rolled over the top which also left him critically low on his practice (which I also watched the day before). I remember that the GR1 display team had a good chat with him over a beer afterwards and they discussed the requirement to unload during the rolling sequence to keep his gate height. Sadly, the rest is history...
What was even sadder was that an airport worker had smuggled his other half onto the airport and she was sitting on top of a small building on the display side. The wreckage of the Hawk landed on her - killing her. Absolutely tragic and a lesson re-learned why the display side is kept free of spectators.
So in my opinion, what might have killed Graham?
1. Not unloading during the roll over the top and then burying the nose when below gate height. You could hear him pulling through the light buffet to the heavy buffet as he realised he had run out of room to pull out.
2. I seem to recall that Graham was not a display pilot but was the company roll-demo pilot/test pilot. I suspect that he may not gone through the same rigorous work-up process that a display team normally does for a pre-season display authorisation (I might be wrong on this though).
3. The Flying Control Committee (or equivalent in Slovakia) should not have let him display after his pre-airshow display performance (again, in my personal opinion). But that is hindsight.
4. Finally, as Slovakia had just started to think about joining NATO and the company that Graham was working for was on the 'hard sell' for Gripen and Hawk. Could it have been that he was rushed into doing this display by the company to increase their sales potential?
Again, this is all my thoughts on the matter and I have no hard evidence to prove any of it. Therefore, my comments are without prejudice.
LJ
What was even sadder was that an airport worker had smuggled his other half onto the airport and she was sitting on top of a small building on the display side. The wreckage of the Hawk landed on her - killing her. Absolutely tragic and a lesson re-learned why the display side is kept free of spectators.
So in my opinion, what might have killed Graham?
1. Not unloading during the roll over the top and then burying the nose when below gate height. You could hear him pulling through the light buffet to the heavy buffet as he realised he had run out of room to pull out.
2. I seem to recall that Graham was not a display pilot but was the company roll-demo pilot/test pilot. I suspect that he may not gone through the same rigorous work-up process that a display team normally does for a pre-season display authorisation (I might be wrong on this though).
3. The Flying Control Committee (or equivalent in Slovakia) should not have let him display after his pre-airshow display performance (again, in my personal opinion). But that is hindsight.
4. Finally, as Slovakia had just started to think about joining NATO and the company that Graham was working for was on the 'hard sell' for Gripen and Hawk. Could it have been that he was rushed into doing this display by the company to increase their sales potential?
Again, this is all my thoughts on the matter and I have no hard evidence to prove any of it. Therefore, my comments are without prejudice.
LJ
The following users liked this post:
This is why I mentioned the other LL barrel roll. It is possible that the situation may have been recoverable in a previous aircraft with which the pilot was more familiar. It also may well have been the case that, after passing the inverted position, the aircraft was continuously thereafter outside ejection seat limits. They aren't a magic wand, and the zero height - zero speed seat depends on zero sink rate and zero bank angle, neither of which are present in the second half of a barrel roll.
PS
This is him pulling light buffet to heavy buffet to light buffet to heavy buffet. The poor bloke probably realised his fate after the first pull on the stick. At his second pull he would never had made a successful ejection if he'd tried as his sink rate was too high. Watching from the ground at the time this went in slow motion through my mind as I was pretty sure as he rolled in the vertical that he was not going to make it. Sadly my thinking was correct as it played out in slow motion before my eyes.
It is one day (and evening) that I will remember for the rest of my days. It taught me a lot about people's reactions in the aftermath of a crash and just how hot an aircraft crash fireball is even when you're standing 500-700m away. It also saved my life a couple of years later when a student started doing a loaded roll during fighter affil at about 1,500ft in the low flying system. I can remember yelling 'unload' to this very day as we subsequently dished out at a couple of hundred feet above the ground! The video debrief was interesting...
The strange "pitch" wobble just prior to the crash never looked quite right to me - was there ever a suggestion of control failure, "pilot error" is always the easiest, but not always the most just verdict.
It is one day (and evening) that I will remember for the rest of my days. It taught me a lot about people's reactions in the aftermath of a crash and just how hot an aircraft crash fireball is even when you're standing 500-700m away. It also saved my life a couple of years later when a student started doing a loaded roll during fighter affil at about 1,500ft in the low flying system. I can remember yelling 'unload' to this very day as we subsequently dished out at a couple of hundred feet above the ground! The video debrief was interesting...
I note your comments on the practice LJ. A crew from our Squadron were at Ramstein in 1988 with a static. The JP told the experienced nav he was going to watch the Frecce display from crowd centre. The nav said "No you aren't. I saw their practice yesterday. They are going to crash. We'll watch it from way over here."
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Amazing insights from all of you, I knew the knowledge would be here.
I would however like to apologise, especially to those of you there on that day, if this thread brought back some bad memories.
Now I have to go away and research the difference between a loaded roll and an unloaded roll.
I would however like to apologise, especially to those of you there on that day, if this thread brought back some bad memories.
Now I have to go away and research the difference between a loaded roll and an unloaded roll.
The following users liked this post:
The Lightning and the Jaguar (I believe Graham flew the Jag in the RAF) are classic swept wing supersonic fast jets where, when the angle of attack goes past what would be the stall in a straight wing aircraft, drag increases massively but lift remains, and may even increase. If sufficient thrust is available in a clean aircraft (e.g. reheat), recovery may be possible. The Hawk, IIRC, does lose lift in the heavy buffet, and of course does not have reheat.
There is a tendency under severe stress for the human brain to do what it knows best, rather than what is correct. Thus pilots can "revert to type" and fly the way they did in the aircraft they know best, rather than the way they should in the one they are in.
I am not saying this is what happened, but it is something investigators consider.
LJ - Beers - I believe he did!
There is a tendency under severe stress for the human brain to do what it knows best, rather than what is correct. Thus pilots can "revert to type" and fly the way they did in the aircraft they know best, rather than the way they should in the one they are in.
I am not saying this is what happened, but it is something investigators consider.
LJ - Beers - I believe he did!
Well you learn something every day.
I'd previously thought zero/zero seats were able to get you out in any situation other than being inverted below a certain height.
Is the zero sink rate restriction due to not wanting to overload the canopy on opening?
Don't understand the zero bank angle restriction either...
I'd previously thought zero/zero seats were able to get you out in any situation other than being inverted below a certain height.
Is the zero sink rate restriction due to not wanting to overload the canopy on opening?
Don't understand the zero bank angle restriction either...