Gnat down at CarFest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I hadn't planned to post my analysis of the video footage, but since I've been moved to write I'll record a +1 for that part of the post (although I think it's more likely that the pilot grossly overbanked while looking into the turn, rather than starting a roll-and-pull through). It looks to me like a straightforward case of the bank angle being corrected without noticing the descent that had been established, followed by a late and excessive pull when the proximity of the ground became apparent.
I'm not 100% familiar with the segment of the display that was being flown however I have seen footage of a single Gnat running down the display line inverted, I assume as part of the synchro segment.
If this was the manoeuvre being attempted at the start of the longer footage available then its possible the roll to inverted was started, insufficient forward stick was available to keep the nose up and the bank quickly rolled back off to recover. With the pitch up continuing to increase as the trim continues to run to full limit, the g-load and AOA would rapidly increase until the point the aircraft stalls / flicks with no room to recover.
I'm not trying to do the AAIB's job just merely throwing another scenario out there other than simply mishandling at low level, perhaps those with more knowledge of the Gant’s rather complex trim system could discuss?
Regards
UA
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Attitude of this forum to military aviators..." Actually it says a great deal particularly the glaring difference between the way civilian and military aviators are spoken about here. I've never once seen the kind of forensic delving into the background and training of any military pilot that has appeared on this thread. That holds true even after accidents in which there was clearly a large slice of blame attributable. How come there's a completely different rule-book in this case?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from what I have read on this thread there seems considerable 'doubt' as to exactly what sort of military flying qualifications the pilot had.
......not helped by the curious evasiveness of the group's website around the subject which I also looked at.
That is why the matter is being raised.
I myself was aware that there were civilian Gnats flying but I had never guessed there was a team flying formation display aerobatics in them which personally I would have thought is the field of full time RAF pilots only.
......not helped by the curious evasiveness of the group's website around the subject which I also looked at.
That is why the matter is being raised.
I myself was aware that there were civilian Gnats flying but I had never guessed there was a team flying formation display aerobatics in them which personally I would have thought is the field of full time RAF pilots only.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I would have thought that the field of full time RAF pilots.." If you did think that, dsc it only shows you're out of touch with the present-day display world. At last years Cosford for instance, all the jets aside from a solo Typhoon and the Reds were civilian. Clearly this offends you but that's how it is. And since you make the point, there have, unfortunately, been numerous tragic examples of airshow crashes by full-time military pilots in UK and elsewhere. Some have involved terrible loss of life on the ground. Can you give even one instance where the pilots' background or training has been spotlighted in this way?
So now that there is no news about the accident, we have another thread about debriefing each other's posts.
And, yes, it is too early to start pontificating about Kev's abilities, quals and life-style choices. And, yes, a little respect and discretion wouldn't go amiss here.
Please.
And, yes, it is too early to start pontificating about Kev's abilities, quals and life-style choices. And, yes, a little respect and discretion wouldn't go amiss here.
Please.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate shotone that you have a bee in your bonnet, but could I point out that you have the wrong end of the stick.
The distinction most are drawing is not between military and civilian pilots; its between full time, do-it-for-a-living pilots and part time pilots who are doing it as a hobby ,or leisure activity, or some other reason. Military and civil does not come into it.
And leading on from that, again most of the posts (if you care to read them) make no comment, disrespectful or otherwise, on the pilots flying abilities whatever the reason he was in the air.
Frankly, you are just making stuff up - and this is way more disrespectful in the long run because it is maintaining a discussion about the pilots abilities, which is a non-existent issue at this moment for most of us at this time.
The distinction most are drawing is not between military and civilian pilots; its between full time, do-it-for-a-living pilots and part time pilots who are doing it as a hobby ,or leisure activity, or some other reason. Military and civil does not come into it.
And leading on from that, again most of the posts (if you care to read them) make no comment, disrespectful or otherwise, on the pilots flying abilities whatever the reason he was in the air.
Frankly, you are just making stuff up - and this is way more disrespectful in the long run because it is maintaining a discussion about the pilots abilities, which is a non-existent issue at this moment for most of us at this time.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought long and hard about not posting.
This poor chap was reported, post tragedy, as being 'RAF trained' in press coverage fed (as I understand it) by input from his team. The implication being that being 'RAF trained' would add to his or the team's credentials, possibly by way of demonstrating in the immediate aftermath of an incredibly emotive event that the accident pilot and team were a professional set up.
It is easy to draw the conclusion here that the team, or the press, were making the point that he had received training, provided by a recogniseable and well thought of organisation. He could therefore, if you followed this train of thought, be assumed to be a better pilot than he would have been in the parallel universe where he wasn't 'RAF trained'.
I have an hour or two in fast jets. I only mention it because in that hour or two I've seen the complete spectrum of behaviour and ability from people of all aviating walks of life. Military, civil, incompetent, dangerous, fabulous, utmost professionalism, the lot.
Military training is simply one of a variety of means of providing training. It doesn't absolutely guarantee competence or professionalism - for those who've had a taster, or those that have done it for a lifetime. The point is simple; there are other ways of entering or continuing aviation that would be considered 'comparable means of compliance'.
Whether you consider this chap to have been RAF trained, or an RAF pilot, or why you think it was mentioned by team or press, or the manner in which it was reported is probably irrelevant.
As for those who feel their time is well spent speculating upon the cause, and factors contributing towards, the tragedy - your call entirely, as is paying an iota of attention for the rest of us.
This poor chap was reported, post tragedy, as being 'RAF trained' in press coverage fed (as I understand it) by input from his team. The implication being that being 'RAF trained' would add to his or the team's credentials, possibly by way of demonstrating in the immediate aftermath of an incredibly emotive event that the accident pilot and team were a professional set up.
It is easy to draw the conclusion here that the team, or the press, were making the point that he had received training, provided by a recogniseable and well thought of organisation. He could therefore, if you followed this train of thought, be assumed to be a better pilot than he would have been in the parallel universe where he wasn't 'RAF trained'.
I have an hour or two in fast jets. I only mention it because in that hour or two I've seen the complete spectrum of behaviour and ability from people of all aviating walks of life. Military, civil, incompetent, dangerous, fabulous, utmost professionalism, the lot.
Military training is simply one of a variety of means of providing training. It doesn't absolutely guarantee competence or professionalism - for those who've had a taster, or those that have done it for a lifetime. The point is simple; there are other ways of entering or continuing aviation that would be considered 'comparable means of compliance'.
Whether you consider this chap to have been RAF trained, or an RAF pilot, or why you think it was mentioned by team or press, or the manner in which it was reported is probably irrelevant.
As for those who feel their time is well spent speculating upon the cause, and factors contributing towards, the tragedy - your call entirely, as is paying an iota of attention for the rest of us.
ShotOne,
You come across as very defensive and I don't think there's any need. If threads here rarely question the training and experience of military pilots, I suspect it's because most posters have a pretty good idea of the training and experience of a military pilot. Conversely most of us have no idea of how you take a PPL-holding civilian and train him/her to fly a fast jet. For instance, would there have been access to a simulator of any description for emergency training? How many hours per annum would have been flown? Is selection for a pilot's seat competitive against a number of other candidates, and if so who does the judging? In most cases we know the answers to questions like those in respect of military flying without needing to ask them. An exception I can think of was the Glen Kinglas F3 accident, where there was quite a discussion over the (junior) pilot's experience of low flying.
You come across as very defensive and I don't think there's any need. If threads here rarely question the training and experience of military pilots, I suspect it's because most posters have a pretty good idea of the training and experience of a military pilot. Conversely most of us have no idea of how you take a PPL-holding civilian and train him/her to fly a fast jet. For instance, would there have been access to a simulator of any description for emergency training? How many hours per annum would have been flown? Is selection for a pilot's seat competitive against a number of other candidates, and if so who does the judging? In most cases we know the answers to questions like those in respect of military flying without needing to ask them. An exception I can think of was the Glen Kinglas F3 accident, where there was quite a discussion over the (junior) pilot's experience of low flying.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this discussion with interest. I was at Carfest and saw this terrible crash. I've seen a couple of pictures taken just before the crash and I was wondering if they show a problem which may have had a bearing on the incident. These images have both been sent to the AAIB before anyone asks. I didn't take them.
I have no flying experience and am as far from being en expert as it's possible to get.
So, to my layman's eye, it looks like there may be something wrong with the ailerons. In these images, the left one looks to be "up" much more than the right is "down" (if it's even down at all, I can't tell). Maybe this is normal, I really don't know.
All I see is that there is clear air visible between the inboard end of the left aileron and the rest of the wing, but none between the right and its wing. I don't really know what to infer from that though.
Can anyone with more experience of these things cast any light on this? Am I seeing something wrong with the plane or am I just wrong in my understanding?
My attempt at an edit showing the wings
The full size images are here
First Image - http://i.imgur.com/1ocdOaH.jpg
Second Image - http://i.imgur.com/Cf1VFWy.jpg
I have no flying experience and am as far from being en expert as it's possible to get.
So, to my layman's eye, it looks like there may be something wrong with the ailerons. In these images, the left one looks to be "up" much more than the right is "down" (if it's even down at all, I can't tell). Maybe this is normal, I really don't know.
All I see is that there is clear air visible between the inboard end of the left aileron and the rest of the wing, but none between the right and its wing. I don't really know what to infer from that though.
Can anyone with more experience of these things cast any light on this? Am I seeing something wrong with the plane or am I just wrong in my understanding?
My attempt at an edit showing the wings
The full size images are here
First Image - http://i.imgur.com/1ocdOaH.jpg
Second Image - http://i.imgur.com/Cf1VFWy.jpg
Throwaway, I am with you in knowing absolutely nowt about jets n stuff, but I am aware that lots of aircraft have ailerons which do not operate symmetrically. Are they referred to as 'differential'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailero...ntial_ailerons
Zoomies will be along to put us straight from a position of knowledge soon!
CG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailero...ntial_ailerons
Zoomies will be along to put us straight from a position of knowledge soon!
CG
^^^^ + 1 As Charlie Golf says
Maybe wouldn't look unusual. Don't know the Gnat that well, so it might be unusual as well. Each of the 4 fast jet types I've flown have different ways of inducing roll - one didn't even have ailerons!
LJ
PS. Even a humble Cessna has differential ailerons with 20degs up and 15degs down in full roll control.
Maybe wouldn't look unusual. Don't know the Gnat that well, so it might be unusual as well. Each of the 4 fast jet types I've flown have different ways of inducing roll - one didn't even have ailerons!
LJ
PS. Even a humble Cessna has differential ailerons with 20degs up and 15degs down in full roll control.
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 16th Aug 2015 at 12:35.
throwaway, those images seem quite normal if the Gnat was being flown with 1 notch of flap (which made it nicer to fly at medium speeds due to increased pitch stability from the inboard shift of the centre of pressure).
That well-known shot of Ray Hanna's low-level beat up also shows the Gnat being flown with a notch of flap extended.
That well-known shot of Ray Hanna's low-level beat up also shows the Gnat being flown with a notch of flap extended.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, thanks for the explanation. Now you mention the flaps I can see that makes sense. The left aileron is lined up with the flap making it appear as though it's not moved, but it's just at the same deflection.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
From an engineering perspective, I don't recall differential aileron on the Gnat. I could be wrong of course and stand corrected if this was the case.
I do recall changing innumerable aileron hydro-boosters however, which were prone to leakage, and likewise the Hobson Units which were a nightmare to set up once the rear fuselage had been connected up again.
I also recall the very complex "monkey puzzle " pulley box system located behind in the rear seat which gave problems for a while, but which were subsequently modified.
NON of the above should in anyway be construed as speculation however, just some clarification as to the flying control systems.
I do recall changing innumerable aileron hydro-boosters however, which were prone to leakage, and likewise the Hobson Units which were a nightmare to set up once the rear fuselage had been connected up again.
I also recall the very complex "monkey puzzle " pulley box system located behind in the rear seat which gave problems for a while, but which were subsequently modified.
NON of the above should in anyway be construed as speculation however, just some clarification as to the flying control systems.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Canada/UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New video ?
Shoreham air crash: Previous UK aerial display accidents - BBC News contains a video of the Gnat at Carfest - it contains two 10 sec segments - the first may be helpful.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,629
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
An average of 12 hours per year over the last five years? And he thought it sensible to display a high performance jet at low level? Whilst it is undoubtably tragic that he lost his life it is all to easy to dance round the obvious. It Is a huge failing of supervision that this was ever allowed to happen but it ultimately rests on the individual. Just how many of these "professional" pilots are trying their luck every week? It is simply not acceptable to say that it was a fault of the system. This pilot should have stopped himself from ever getting airborne never mind relying on the "system" to protect them.