Gnat down at CarFest
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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.
You are of course entirely entitled to hold that opinion.
Much has been made of his RAF "training". All I was trying to say was that i cannot see how anyone having had any sort of formal military training could get into that sort of position. I would consider myself very fortunate to have flown nearly 2000 hours in single seat fast jets. If you asked me to display a jet when i had averaged 12 hours per year over the last 5 years then i would tell you where to go. I honestly cannot understand the mindset of someone who felt capable of "leading" a pair of jets when they are so obviously not capable of the task.
Much has been made of his RAF "training". All I was trying to say was that i cannot see how anyone having had any sort of formal military training could get into that sort of position. I would consider myself very fortunate to have flown nearly 2000 hours in single seat fast jets. If you asked me to display a jet when i had averaged 12 hours per year over the last 5 years then i would tell you where to go. I honestly cannot understand the mindset of someone who felt capable of "leading" a pair of jets when they are so obviously not capable of the task.
Is the important metric "hours" or "sorties" flown? It appears that all of them were either a display or a practice in that aircraft.
Sorties / hours /displays or practices.
11/6/ 5
15/11/11
18/13/13
26/19/18/
9/10/7
Won't comment further but sometimes hours (for short flights) might not be as significant as number of sorties flown.
Sorties / hours /displays or practices.
11/6/ 5
15/11/11
18/13/13
26/19/18/
9/10/7
Won't comment further but sometimes hours (for short flights) might not be as significant as number of sorties flown.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at that CarFest with my family. I had no idea that a pilot with so little experience and recency on the aircraft would be allowed to fly a display such as that at an event with thousands of people attending. That there is a system that allowed that to happen beggars belief.
Comparisons with everyday driving activities are ludicrous by the way.
S-D
Comparisons with everyday driving activities are ludicrous by the way.
S-D
Flap62,
I'm inclined to agree with you. However, in this case he wasn't 'taskd by the Boss' to display - he was a volunteer who'd stumped up (I guess) a considerable amount of money over the past 5 years to get in that cockpit. It makes my eyes water to think of a 700 hr PPL displaying as part of a pair of FJs - let alone with, by military stds, pretty poor currency.
Maybe the CAA need to have a long hard look at their DA rules. The 200hr limit was, probably, there to enable the likes of Tiger Club members to display a Stampe. Perhaps now there will be a much stricter requirement laid down on experience & currency. It would be easy to say 'only ex mil FJ guys can display jets'; I guess if it wasn't for Shoreham it would be a cacophony - but that accident also raises the issue of currency not just background. There is already a massive change occuring in the ex-mil jet world, and, IMHO, rightly so. unfortunately it will mean the loss from these shores, or the sky, of some distinctive and worthy aircraft. But. Airshows need to be demonstrably safe and if that means fewer,better experienced, pilots flying more ISPs/displays to be more current then so be it.
I'm inclined to agree with you. However, in this case he wasn't 'taskd by the Boss' to display - he was a volunteer who'd stumped up (I guess) a considerable amount of money over the past 5 years to get in that cockpit. It makes my eyes water to think of a 700 hr PPL displaying as part of a pair of FJs - let alone with, by military stds, pretty poor currency.
Maybe the CAA need to have a long hard look at their DA rules. The 200hr limit was, probably, there to enable the likes of Tiger Club members to display a Stampe. Perhaps now there will be a much stricter requirement laid down on experience & currency. It would be easy to say 'only ex mil FJ guys can display jets'; I guess if it wasn't for Shoreham it would be a cacophony - but that accident also raises the issue of currency not just background. There is already a massive change occuring in the ex-mil jet world, and, IMHO, rightly so. unfortunately it will mean the loss from these shores, or the sky, of some distinctive and worthy aircraft. But. Airshows need to be demonstrably safe and if that means fewer,better experienced, pilots flying more ISPs/displays to be more current then so be it.
If a person with a basic PPL with low hours and poor currency can gain authority to fly a high performance swept-wing fast jet, in a demanding flight regime at a public event, one has to ask just what the CAA believes is 'not good enough'. If this unfortunate soul didn't stand-out to them as a massive concern then we don't really have a regulator worthy of the role.
Brings back memories of the day I was a low hours Gnat pilot, going round the final turn and going down like a lift an fresh out of ideas - until Vic W in the back said "I have control" and unloaded, got us to s&l, and a quiet Rhodesian voice from the back said "If you'd been on your own you would have been adjectival dead." Thanks Vic. But sadly it highlights what seems to have happened here. Low hours, short on experience and out of ideas. Very sad. RIP
Now that the report is published, I'll offer my thoughts.
The report certainly raises some interesting points. To my mind, it also appears not to address a couple of important points. I should declare, at this point, that I have never flown the Gnat, but I do have some 5000 hours of fast jet flying. I have never done, nor ever had the desire to do low level aeros although I have been involved in flight and display supervision.
His experience and currency is obviously the main issue that stands out in this case, followed closely by his undeclared medical condition, which may be irrelevant, but surely deserves consideration, given that he may have had symptoms - occurrences of symptoms of the condition only disappear over time in 25% of cases (Mayo Clinic website).
It appears, from the report that the relevant sequence of events was two rapid aileron rolls, nose drop at low altitude and application of an incorrect recovery technique - for whatever reason.
The two rolls were separated by a short pause, so it seems unlikely that inertia coupling was an issue provided there was no longitudinal stick input. Although, the shorter the pause, the greater the likelihood of residual yaw/pitch from the first roll. Alternatively, it is possible that the pilot has applied back stick to correct any nose drop from the first roll and had not fully removed that input during the entry to the second roll. Any residual rearward stick input would induce a pitch down after the first quarter of the roll - as could air disturbance (jet wash, etc). The situation may have been recoverable at that point.
What follows is based on the report's ascertain that technical faults were not determined, although that does not necessarily mean there weren't any.
Commanding right roll was appropriate as would rearward stick movement once the wings were level or close to it. (unload, roll wings level, pull to the buffet). A hard pull when overbanked was not. Also the degree of aft input looks like it was large enough to stall one or both wings. So the question is why pull at that stage and why so hard? Some possibilities:
Lack of experience in Gnat handling.
Lack of training in the correct recovery technique.
Momentary desperation.
Or, not really addressed in the report, disorientation. Causes? Rapid head movement for some reason during the roll or between the rolls (looking for his number two?), increased susceptibility on the day due to physiological factors or dizziness brought on by his medical condition - is a listed symptom. I doubt that gloc was an issue at that point.
I look forward to comments from the TP, Gnat pilot and QFI fraternity. I'm just a QWI.
I do have to say, it's a good report, but it does leave some gaps in the findings. I also wonder how well a PPL pilot understands the intricacies of swept wing aerodynamics, inertia couple ing and the bit with K, Q, cam and gear in it?
The report certainly raises some interesting points. To my mind, it also appears not to address a couple of important points. I should declare, at this point, that I have never flown the Gnat, but I do have some 5000 hours of fast jet flying. I have never done, nor ever had the desire to do low level aeros although I have been involved in flight and display supervision.
His experience and currency is obviously the main issue that stands out in this case, followed closely by his undeclared medical condition, which may be irrelevant, but surely deserves consideration, given that he may have had symptoms - occurrences of symptoms of the condition only disappear over time in 25% of cases (Mayo Clinic website).
It appears, from the report that the relevant sequence of events was two rapid aileron rolls, nose drop at low altitude and application of an incorrect recovery technique - for whatever reason.
The two rolls were separated by a short pause, so it seems unlikely that inertia coupling was an issue provided there was no longitudinal stick input. Although, the shorter the pause, the greater the likelihood of residual yaw/pitch from the first roll. Alternatively, it is possible that the pilot has applied back stick to correct any nose drop from the first roll and had not fully removed that input during the entry to the second roll. Any residual rearward stick input would induce a pitch down after the first quarter of the roll - as could air disturbance (jet wash, etc). The situation may have been recoverable at that point.
What follows is based on the report's ascertain that technical faults were not determined, although that does not necessarily mean there weren't any.
Commanding right roll was appropriate as would rearward stick movement once the wings were level or close to it. (unload, roll wings level, pull to the buffet). A hard pull when overbanked was not. Also the degree of aft input looks like it was large enough to stall one or both wings. So the question is why pull at that stage and why so hard? Some possibilities:
Lack of experience in Gnat handling.
Lack of training in the correct recovery technique.
Momentary desperation.
Or, not really addressed in the report, disorientation. Causes? Rapid head movement for some reason during the roll or between the rolls (looking for his number two?), increased susceptibility on the day due to physiological factors or dizziness brought on by his medical condition - is a listed symptom. I doubt that gloc was an issue at that point.
I look forward to comments from the TP, Gnat pilot and QFI fraternity. I'm just a QWI.
I do have to say, it's a good report, but it does leave some gaps in the findings. I also wonder how well a PPL pilot understands the intricacies of swept wing aerodynamics, inertia couple ing and the bit with K, Q, cam and gear in it?
Totally Agree
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.
For the record, for a UK / EASA PPL, the absolute minimum to maintain the licence is 12 hours in the second half of each 2 year cycle. That 12 hours must include at-least 1 hour with an instructor, and at-least 6 hours PiC.
So, it would appear likely that this chap was just meeting the minimum recency requirements that the CAA would consider appropriate to - say - fly a Cessna 150.
Military minima are, of-course, somewhat higher!
G
So, it would appear likely that this chap was just meeting the minimum recency requirements that the CAA would consider appropriate to - say - fly a Cessna 150.
Military minima are, of-course, somewhat higher!
G
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the problem is that the Venn diagram of 'people who have the experience and currency to display vintage Jets' and 'people who can afford to fly vintage jets' doesn't have much in the overlap. This chap appears to have been in the latter category but not the former. I only fly spamcans and I wouldn't be happy with that level of currency in a PA28.
Also I note the falling off in his annual hours recently - I wonder if family considerations meant he couldn't find time or money as easily? Pure speculation but a common problem with private flying.
Also I note the falling off in his annual hours recently - I wonder if family considerations meant he couldn't find time or money as easily? Pure speculation but a common problem with private flying.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 71
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In post 209, Courtney Mil has offered a clear analysis of the possible reasons for this sad accident.
There is a 14-year-old thread here which addresses the roll rate of the Gnat and the potential for inertial coupling, fin stress and disorientation. The maximum roll rate of the Gnat could easily be increased by the removal of Fuse 13. It would be useful if the moderators could bring this thread to the front of the forum, as it is locked and therefore I cannot.
We shall probably never know why the aircraft had a positive pitch input during the latter stages of the second roll. However, I had the great pleasure of flying the Gnat during my RAF training, and confirm that the roll-rate during a "twinkle" roll is very high, even with Fuse 13 in-situ. From memory - and I am sure I will be corrected if my 40-year memory fails me - the procedure was to raise the nose slightly above the horizon, quickly apply full aileron, then almost immediately cease rolling. It was so fast - and so easy! - that there was little potential for excessive nose-drop. However, there was great potential for disorientation to occur, and that potential would increase dramatically (a) when carrying out two consecutive rolls; (b) at low level; (c) with the added psychological stresses of leading a formation and flying at a public display; and (d) if one were not fully experienced and current on the aircraft.
There is a high probability that (d) - experience and currency - is the overriding factor in this case. The AAIB report sets out this pilot's comparatively shallow experience of (a) flying in general; (b) flying fast jets; (c) flying the Gnat; and (d) his poor currency. With this in mind, others have suggested that this pilot should not have allowed himself to carry out this display flight. However, his flying experience appears to have met all the rules and, I am sure that the pilot was absolutely certain that he was up to the job. After all, he had had the benefit of excellent RAF training prior to his medical retirement, and I would imagine that flying the Gnat was his way of replacing his dashed ambitions within the RAF, and good on him for that. But - we pilots sometimes believe that we are more competent than we really are, and it often takes someone else to tell us the truth. I've been there.
What was lacking here was (a) a proper chain of supervison; and (b) a system of rules for experience and currency that took into account (i) the skills required to fly a fast jet competently; (ii) the experience required to carry out aerobatics safely in a fast jet at low level; and (iii) the currency required to ensure that a pilot is both competent and safe on any particular day.
I quote Salad-Dodger above "I was at that CarFest with my family. I had no idea that a pilot with so little experience and recency on the aircraft would be allowed to fly a display such as that at an event with thousands of people attending. That there is a system that allowed that to happen beggars belief."
Yes, Salad-Dodger, you are right. When I organised RAF air shows back in the '80s, safety of the public was my major concern. I was happy to accept that the pilots flying at my displays were well-supervised and well-authorised for the event by either the RAF or the CAA. I knew that the RAF's supervision was to a very high standard, and the CAA's was entirely satisfactory for the Pitts Specials and similar civilian aircraft. However, with the advent of ex-military fast jets to the civilian flying display circuit, I would not wish to be a Display Director now - because, based purely on the current CAA rules for of supervision and authorisation, I would be unable to trust any civilian fast-jet to produce a display which would meet my standards for safety.
I would strongly suggest that the CAA should produce a brand new set of rules for the flying of ex-military fast jets by civilians at air displays. I am not suggesting a massaging of the old rules - what is required is for the CAA to go back to square one and produce a proper set of rules fit for purpose. If this results in a reduction in the number of vintage fast jets available for display, that's life.
There is a 14-year-old thread here which addresses the roll rate of the Gnat and the potential for inertial coupling, fin stress and disorientation. The maximum roll rate of the Gnat could easily be increased by the removal of Fuse 13. It would be useful if the moderators could bring this thread to the front of the forum, as it is locked and therefore I cannot.
We shall probably never know why the aircraft had a positive pitch input during the latter stages of the second roll. However, I had the great pleasure of flying the Gnat during my RAF training, and confirm that the roll-rate during a "twinkle" roll is very high, even with Fuse 13 in-situ. From memory - and I am sure I will be corrected if my 40-year memory fails me - the procedure was to raise the nose slightly above the horizon, quickly apply full aileron, then almost immediately cease rolling. It was so fast - and so easy! - that there was little potential for excessive nose-drop. However, there was great potential for disorientation to occur, and that potential would increase dramatically (a) when carrying out two consecutive rolls; (b) at low level; (c) with the added psychological stresses of leading a formation and flying at a public display; and (d) if one were not fully experienced and current on the aircraft.
There is a high probability that (d) - experience and currency - is the overriding factor in this case. The AAIB report sets out this pilot's comparatively shallow experience of (a) flying in general; (b) flying fast jets; (c) flying the Gnat; and (d) his poor currency. With this in mind, others have suggested that this pilot should not have allowed himself to carry out this display flight. However, his flying experience appears to have met all the rules and, I am sure that the pilot was absolutely certain that he was up to the job. After all, he had had the benefit of excellent RAF training prior to his medical retirement, and I would imagine that flying the Gnat was his way of replacing his dashed ambitions within the RAF, and good on him for that. But - we pilots sometimes believe that we are more competent than we really are, and it often takes someone else to tell us the truth. I've been there.
What was lacking here was (a) a proper chain of supervison; and (b) a system of rules for experience and currency that took into account (i) the skills required to fly a fast jet competently; (ii) the experience required to carry out aerobatics safely in a fast jet at low level; and (iii) the currency required to ensure that a pilot is both competent and safe on any particular day.
I quote Salad-Dodger above "I was at that CarFest with my family. I had no idea that a pilot with so little experience and recency on the aircraft would be allowed to fly a display such as that at an event with thousands of people attending. That there is a system that allowed that to happen beggars belief."
Yes, Salad-Dodger, you are right. When I organised RAF air shows back in the '80s, safety of the public was my major concern. I was happy to accept that the pilots flying at my displays were well-supervised and well-authorised for the event by either the RAF or the CAA. I knew that the RAF's supervision was to a very high standard, and the CAA's was entirely satisfactory for the Pitts Specials and similar civilian aircraft. However, with the advent of ex-military fast jets to the civilian flying display circuit, I would not wish to be a Display Director now - because, based purely on the current CAA rules for of supervision and authorisation, I would be unable to trust any civilian fast-jet to produce a display which would meet my standards for safety.
I would strongly suggest that the CAA should produce a brand new set of rules for the flying of ex-military fast jets by civilians at air displays. I am not suggesting a massaging of the old rules - what is required is for the CAA to go back to square one and produce a proper set of rules fit for purpose. If this results in a reduction in the number of vintage fast jets available for display, that's life.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Civilian Hunters are still grounded.
The one recent exception was the ex MidAir Squadron airframe at Kemble which was sold. It did a test flight last month and then went on its ferry flight out to Jordan to join the ex Classic AF (ex Swiss) Vampire for the RJAF Historic Flight
The military operated ones are still flyable to my knowledge. Post Shoreham or at least for the last part of the 2015 display season historic fast jets were allowed flypasts only.
V1
The one recent exception was the ex MidAir Squadron airframe at Kemble which was sold. It did a test flight last month and then went on its ferry flight out to Jordan to join the ex Classic AF (ex Swiss) Vampire for the RJAF Historic Flight
The military operated ones are still flyable to my knowledge. Post Shoreham or at least for the last part of the 2015 display season historic fast jets were allowed flypasts only.
V1
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wiltshire England
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked at DASC (formally IFS) I concur with Courtney Mil. When many of of these 'vintage jets' were in RAF squadron service display flying was carried out by pilots who were experienced operators on type and had extra hours to practise their display. If I remember correctly any display flying had to be approved by a VSO normally the AOC at the beginning of the season. Most of these aircraft have some nasty little foibles which which could catch out experienced combat ready pilots when exploring the flight envelope. Even the humble Chipmunk had to be treated with respect. We all really enjoy watching these vintage jets flying but they were designed in the 40's, 50's and 60's when swept wing aircraft were very much cutting edge.
I think the issue of pilot currency for non military displays is undoubtedly the one factor the CAA need to address most urgently.
It was a factor in the Gnat incident and will almost certainly be a factor in the Shoreham one.
There is a massive difference in standards between military and civilian display pilots in both currency requirements and experience on type needed to have DA/PDA. It would be no surprise if the currency standards for civilian pilots moves further towards that required for military pilots (in both terms of hours on type and ISP requirements).
Of course, that may kill civilian display flying, or kill the airshow scene (we will end up with Cosford/Farnborough and RIAT and sod all else due to increased costs)
BBC
It was a factor in the Gnat incident and will almost certainly be a factor in the Shoreham one.
There is a massive difference in standards between military and civilian display pilots in both currency requirements and experience on type needed to have DA/PDA. It would be no surprise if the currency standards for civilian pilots moves further towards that required for military pilots (in both terms of hours on type and ISP requirements).
Of course, that may kill civilian display flying, or kill the airshow scene (we will end up with Cosford/Farnborough and RIAT and sod all else due to increased costs)
BBC