Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Thanks JFZ90. It was the reference to "stunt" and the confusion with "altitude" which suggests to me it was not written by an aviation person.
Matters not as it has no bearing on this tragic accident.

[Captain Kirk]

Pabs... *sigh* not everything on here is conjecture and the AAIB do not have a monopoly on the experience used to determine the cause(s) of accidents. The video reveals a number of facts, not least that the Hunter ran out of height and struck the ground. Working backwards, objectively, reveals a great deal. Deduction is a science.

I just don't think that we are entitled to be quite as guarded with information as we are generally inclined to be - this event is tragically unusual and it is not just one of our own who has suffered appallingly as a result. That said, the admittedly rife speculation by the uninformed is unhelpful - and I also agree that the public/press will be unable to differentiate between the two. The latest 'flameout' tripe is case in point - and for the public/press that are reading these posts, if the engine flamed out in the position illustrated then a pilot - any pilot qualified to be flying an aeroplane of this class - would spot-roll out and position for a forced landing or a controlled ejection, NOT commit to a nose-low pull-through.

So for the BBC, et al, please stop quoting idiots with zero relevant experience - you are, by association, making yourselves look like idiots...

[Reheat On]

Courtney Mil

There is a hint of what may be wing rock shortly before impact.

--------------------------

I took this and it rather confirms your comment

Still trying to beat the upload issues so link only for now

http://1drv.ms/1hgDUWG

[melmothtw]

the Hunter ran out a height before striking the ground.

Best post so far!

[JointShiteFighter]

...and again I didn't say it was pilot error, I said it was poorly flown.

That's basically the same thing.

[Courtney Mil]

A few people have remarked about posts that aren't showing up. Hopefully our excellent mods can shed some light, but it may not be a deliberate action on their part. The site seems to have been unusually busy which may be maxing the server out. It seems unlikely that benign posts would be deleted while some of the more contentious ones left up.

We're generally given a fair amount of latitude here so posts are only normally deleted with good reason. Of course, I haven't seen the posts in question.

Any ideas, Mods?

[Courtney Mil]

Mel,

"The best post so far". Good call!

Originally Posted by CK

The video reveals a number of facts, not least that the Hunter ran out of height and struck the ground. Working backwards, objectively, reveals a great deal. Deduction is a science.

I maintain that the aircraft striking the ground is pretty much the only fact one can deduce from the video with any reasonable degree of certainty.

Originally Posted by CK

I just don't think that we are entitled to be quite as guarded with information as we are generally inclined to be

I may have misunderstood you (please read on and I'll explain), but your use of the the word "entitled" could cause some to infer that you feel we have some form of duty to start drawing conclusions from the video and publishing them in public. The only people that have such a duty are those conducting the official inquiry, those that will see ALL the facts and that have the real expertise in interpreting them.

That said, I agree with your point about rife speculation and, more specifically, about the latest "flameout" theory. If your meaning about duty referred to debunking that kind of bolleaux (to borrow BEgle's favourite retort in such cases), then I fully concur.

My concern is that folk here (this is not directed at anyone in particular) don't fuel or incite new speculation either deliberately or, more likely, inadvertently by drawing conclusions too early. Do do have a duty here to understand that the hundreds (literally) of lurkers viewing this forum see a number of experts making, possibly, far more credible statements that could be construed as proven fact. Anyone that even appears to support the wild claims from the media are simply adding credibility to them and may convince more Mr J Publics to believe they now know what happened.

I really think I've said enough on this subject so will now wind my neck in. Honest! No, really!

[PPRuNe Towers]

We've been binning the moaning regarding the self serving media 'experts' flocking to comment on this and any other accident

As has been made absolutely clear on this thread, the genuinely experienced and current won't speak to the media and this has been so for decades.

Therefore reporting can't and won't ever get better.

It's a waste of pixels and server capacity while PPRuNers just make themselves feel better with a healthy, blood pressure inducing then reducing tirade. We've had twenty years of it here on the site. It's never done a thing to change anything and is utterly pointless.

We also thin out the constant repetition of the same points made time and time again in a way that allows a theme or themes to be discussed over a page or two with much less distraction.

Rob

[Pontius Navigator]

Thank you, much better ppruning here than Rob on the R&N where he sent me to the cooler a few months back and forgot about me.

Had to use an alias to keep reading

[KenV]

KenV - without wanting to drift too much, I thought I read that assessing the gate with an erroneous height reference relative to the airfield was the fundamental cause of the F16 incident - do you have another view/insight?

From the article you cited: "It appears that the pilot reverted back to his Nellis habit pattern for a split second."

The F-16 pilot computed everything correctly and had the correct altimeter setting for this location. And he had performed this maneuver hundreds of times at a lower altitude and could do it by "instinct". For whatever reason his concentration slipped for a split second and he reverted to instinct when he rolled inverted and pulled, from which at this location with a higher ground elevation was not recoverable.

The reason I brought this accident up at all is simple. One poster here insisted with absolute certainty that it was "plainly obvious" from the video that the Hunter pilot was performing a 1/4 clover maneuver, and that the pilot had "obviously" executed it "poorly". So I challenged him (repeatedly) to view the video of the F-16 accident and tell me what was wrong with that loop maneuver. That video showed the maneuver from both outside and inside the cockpit. He failed to recognize that the maneuver was NOT a loop at all but a split S, which is TOTALLY different than a loop. He ASSUMED the F-16 was performing a loop because he had read it was a loop and despite abundant very obvious visual evidence to the contrary and coaching telling him something was not right and to look carefully, he did not see it was not a loop. All he saw was a loop, because that is what he had read. In the same way, he ASSUMED the Hunter was performing a 1/4 clover because he had read it was a 1/4 clover. But there was no way to know. In other words, he engaged in wild speculation based on what is likely a wildly false assumption.

[Pittsextra]

Ken - to be clear I didn't assume anything in your F16 video. Actually by the time I got home to view things many posts had been deleted here and you'd been chatting about it on a different thread which kind of made any input irrelevant.

I'm real sorry to say this but ultimately I have no idea the point you are trying to make with this because frankly in your F-16 example loop, half roll/half loop (Split S in USA) is regardless because the looping element ended with the once fully working aircraft in a million pieces. I think you are trying to make a horse race out of nothing tbh.

You are of course very welcome to your own opinion on the figure being flown (which by the way I didn't read it was a 1/4 clover.. I can see with my own eyes that it looks like a 1/4 clover) , you are very welcome to suggest I am wrong. It would of course help if you would give a view or opinion as to why you think I'm wrong - with specific reference to what you can see but either way its pretty far from WILD speculation. Even in your F16 case you enjoy so much mistaking the half looping element for a loop is not really WILDLY wrong!

Anyway read this:-

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...009_G-HURR.pdf

See page 31 point 4.1 and I guess any AAIB interim report will be able to give absolute clarity as to what the sequence was. I'll leave it there.

[Fluffy Bunny]

I've got a shovel if you want to keep digging Pitts.....

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Reheat On

Courtney Mil

There is a hint of what may be wing rock shortly before impact.

http://1drv.ms/1hgDUWG

In an effort to understand, in the case of the Hunter: is a wing rock, a one such as is being discussed, associated with any kind of stall or is it more closely associated with an accelerated stall?

(I did note an observation along these lines either here or on R&N regarding swept wing characteristics).

[ZeBedie]

It seems highly likely that if it stalled, it was an accelerated stall doesn't it? The idea that it stalled at its 1g stall speed is hard to accept.

[KenV]

Even in your F16 case you enjoy so much mistaking the half looping element for a loop is not really WILDLY wrong!

Wow. You really enjoy digging yourself deeper and deeper, don't you? A loop is performed wings level from beginning to end. There is no roll. In a loop the aircraft goes inverted by rotating ONLY in pitch and not in roll. The energy state of the aircraft is constantly changing throughout the entire maneuver. In a split S the aircraft goes inverted by rotating only in roll and NOT in pitch. It is a totally different maneuver with totally different energy states. Arguing they are the same or even similar is to show a GROSS lack of very basic understanding. If you can't "see with your own eyes" the difference between a loop and a split S and do not understand the very significant difference between the two, you are grossly unqualified to "see with your own eyes" if the Hunter pilot was attempting a 1/4 clover.

And oh yes, your link to the accident report for the Hurricane accident further cements your gross misunderstanding of very basic flight maneuvering. The only thing that Hurricane accident had in common with this Hunter accident was the location.

[Courtney Mil]

Lonewolf, yes, absolutely an accelerated stall. You might get a wing drop in a 1g stall. I would explain the mechanics of it, but better I leave it to a QFI or someone with more Hunter hours than I.

[Pittsextra]

Ken - are we just having an argument for the sake of it here? Why are we getting hung up on the F16? I said to you before that I had no idea which elements people were commenting upon previously in the video you posted BUT my point was this - if the piece of film is partial and starts such that they don't see the roll element and all they saw was an F16 pulling through in a split-S and mis-took that for a loop, what is the point? you are trying to force this to fit the Hunter film where I can see the thing flying erect beforehand from a camera outside! I'm not seeing a partial film from on board. Frankly I couldn't give a fukk about the F16 it's just your insistence that because I didn't engage in your F16 riddle that I can't see a Hunter go from Erect flight and pull up into a 1/4 clover - which it fails to complete before striking the ground. I don't see the link! When you see the film what figure do you see?

I didn't comment upon the Hurricane accident other than the recommendations are clear.

[Mach Two]

Pitts, this is just an observation, which you may ignore as you see fit.

As you may have noticed, this thread is now being dragged way off course and too many pages are being taken up by members trying to get you to soften your approach and to moderate the way you express some of your statements. If you don't like what others say either leave it alone of engage reasonably.

KenV can be an argumentative old git, but he does at least conform with expectations of the forum (in his own, slightly rebellious way). If you choose to engage there expect him to reply in kind, which he has done in this case and not without provocation on your part.

Discussions do get heated here sometimes, but most of us know when to consider with a little care the message that others are sending and understand when to step back a little.

I'm guessing you're not in active service and I doubt you have a service background. Therefore, a little respect here for the spirit of this forum and its intended users probably wouldn't go amiss.

Just an observation intended to keep things relevant, down to simmering and a little less aggressive.

[PX927]

I was at the Shoreham Airshow on Saturday and I hope all the loved ones / family members / friends of the victims can come to terms with this tragic event as quickly and as painlessly as possible. I also hope that Andy Hill can make a full recovery. I expect neither will be easy.

As a non-flyer and outsider, I have appreciated contributors' views on the events of the day, but at this point, I wonder if for future threads on accidents that their might be a new approach, which is: you are allowed one post to the thread and no further contributions. This means that you will have to enter a considered, precise and clear statement which doesn't then generate a series of qualifications, expansions, retractions and denials as other people respond to your post. In doing so, you should of course only offer your view and not comment on others that have gone before. Only when some official findings have been published does the thread (or its successor) revert to type.

Yes I know it's a "discussion" forum, but I can't help thinking of Monty Python and the Argument sketch at various points in this thread.

I shall now revert to where I started before I broke my own self-imposed rule: better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or am I supposed to say, hat,

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by ZeBedie

It seems highly likely that if it stalled, it was an accelerated stall doesn't it? The idea that it stalled at its 1g stall speed is hard to accept.

Indeed, I assumed that, but sometimes it is best I ask to make sure I have my mind right since I am not familiar with the type.
@Courtney Mil

Lonewolf, yes, absolutely an accelerated stall. You might get a wing drop in a 1g stall. I would explain the mechanics of it, but better I leave it to a QFI or someone with more Hunter hours than I.

Thanks.

@PX

Yes I know it's a "discussion" forum, but I can't help thinking of Monty Python and the Argument sketch at various points in this thread.

Taking the Python, are we?