Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think someone should have a nice cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie-down.
Have there been any further findings or an indication that the AAIB might publish a preliminary report?
I ask this because the media frenzy, fuelled by 'experts', shows no signs of abating.
Have there been any further findings or an indication that the AAIB might publish a preliminary report?
I ask this because the media frenzy, fuelled by 'experts', shows no signs of abating.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
Now how about killing all the toing and froing about F16s
The background noise and inter-personal play is really making it not worth continuing to try to follow the thread.
I'm surprised Douglas Bader's [Bristol] Bulldog crash hasn't been mentioned
PN, PX, Stan, MPN, Fluffy and others,
I get your feelings. I for one apologise for taking up too much space here pushing my "don't speculate in public" cause. As I have said, I hereby cease (unless...)
A lot of relevant posts have gone unanswered as a result of the bickering.
I agree, drop the F-16 discussion, which is never going to get a meaningful reply. Back to the real issue.
Those upset by the distractions, please continue to post your thoughts, questions and opinions. I commend MT's "observations" to those with doubts.
Courtney
I get your feelings. I for one apologise for taking up too much space here pushing my "don't speculate in public" cause. As I have said, I hereby cease (unless...)
A lot of relevant posts have gone unanswered as a result of the bickering.
I agree, drop the F-16 discussion, which is never going to get a meaningful reply. Back to the real issue.
Those upset by the distractions, please continue to post your thoughts, questions and opinions. I commend MT's "observations" to those with doubts.
Courtney
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation.
The bottom line is that a number of innocents died whilst having NOTHING to do with the airshow. My thoughts are with them and of course AH (who knew the risks). That's what this thread should be about... Respect and condolences.
Right now, the cause of the crash is almost irrelevant. CFIT, mech failure, whatever. That will all become clear in due course and no one here is capable of expediting that timeline.
There are too many people on here exhibiting a huge amount of self importance, whilst the likes of CM try to keep the field level. Please stop willy waving and show some respect. Your opinions towards the cause of the crash do not matter one iota in the big scheme of things. Speculation should be kept private and out of reach of the Daily Hate etc....
I honestly believe that this thread is doing nothing more than fuel the ignorant media.
Right now, the cause of the crash is almost irrelevant. CFIT, mech failure, whatever. That will all become clear in due course and no one here is capable of expediting that timeline.
There are too many people on here exhibiting a huge amount of self importance, whilst the likes of CM try to keep the field level. Please stop willy waving and show some respect. Your opinions towards the cause of the crash do not matter one iota in the big scheme of things. Speculation should be kept private and out of reach of the Daily Hate etc....
I honestly believe that this thread is doing nothing more than fuel the ignorant media.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree, if some obviously very experienced individuals on here debunked some of the wilder theories (deliberately landed on the A27?!) and offered the media some reasoned explanations/possibilities then maybe they wouldn't have to rely on pseudo experts to misinform the public and shape the debate?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CM, your posts are to the point and welcome.
PX927, with respect I disagree. If someone makes their considered, precise and clear contribution but makes a completely erroneous post then it is only right that those more expert make a correction.
In the case in point the aircraft has been a WW 2 Hawker Hunter Mk 4 or was it Mk 6, was modified from a single seater to two-seats and had reheat. One of those items is correct. Would you have us not refute the errors.
I don't expect a response.
PX927, with respect I disagree. If someone makes their considered, precise and clear contribution but makes a completely erroneous post then it is only right that those more expert make a correction.
In the case in point the aircraft has been a WW 2 Hawker Hunter Mk 4 or was it Mk 6, was modified from a single seater to two-seats and had reheat. One of those items is correct. Would you have us not refute the errors.
I don't expect a response.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To reiterate, I think CM's posts, along with some others have been excellent however, there are too many people on here posting opinions that are not helpful.
We all know that PP is a 'source' for many Journos. Let's not fuel the gits.
Speculating about incidents where there was no loss of life is one thing; guessing about events leading to a heavy loss of life is simply not on.
We all know that PP is a 'source' for many Journos. Let's not fuel the gits.
Speculating about incidents where there was no loss of life is one thing; guessing about events leading to a heavy loss of life is simply not on.
Some time ago Ali Qadoo (sp?) remarked that Craig Penrice had made a statement to the Sun. Sorry, I've allowed myself to become distracted. There's a photo of part of the article on Craig's FB page, but I'm trying to find the article which was page 7 on 24 Aug because Craig will have given a good account.
BBC reported:
If anyone finds the article would you be so kind as to post a link here?
BBC reported:
The Sun hears from former RAF pilot Craig Penrice, who has flown with Hill, who says he'd be surprised if pilot error caused the crash. "The pilot could have lost consciousness from the G-force, misread something, he could have hit a bird, which could have cost him thrust. We just don't know."
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 27th Aug 2015 at 21:26.
I feel that we should await the findings of the AAIB before becoming too involved with our own ideas of what may have happened! However much experience on the Hunter we may have, none of us know anything about what happened on this very sad sortie! We can all speculate, but that is all it is! The press and so-called "experts" have already shown that they are not worth listening too and, quite frankly, are making themselves look stupid in the eyes of anyone who has flown professionally. Feed the general public, but not much in the papers today, however!! Moved on!!
My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones and those still fighting for recovery. God bless!
My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones and those still fighting for recovery. God bless!
I very much agree with the call for respect and retraint, and with that in mind would like to offer a couple of observations which I hope are seen as constructive.
Firstly, I share the general distaste for the media and their methods, but in this instance have a greater measure of tolerance than usual. This is a national-scale tragedy, and there is an understandable demand for more information and understanding. Editors will have set expectations of minutes on air and column inches to be filled, and the whole machine bursts into life to deliver them. Being inherently lazy, journalists will latch on to whatever or whoever they can find to provide "content". Pprune is a source for sure, as are any "experts" who are prepared to self certify their credentials and qualifications to justify their views being given the oxygen of publicity. Enough has already been written about the various individuals and their opinions, but an early learning emerging is that there was a need for some authoritative spokesperson to front for the display "industry". BADA made a reasonable start with the statement on their website, but a statement on a website, however sensible, cannot gain traction without a face and some advocacy and willingness to address reasonable questions in a reasonable and measured way. Captain "Winkle" Brown has attracted some criticism on here for a comment attributed to him that "it looked as if it could have been pilot error". Leaving aside for a moment his credentials, and the fact that he was an eye witness, even my mother (who is not a pilot!) thinks it could have been pilot error having seen the videos on television! The videos are particularly graphic, and whilst inconclusive as to cause at this stage, we should not be naive in thinking that people would not be reaching similar views as Winkle but for the media. In fact, I do believe the media are, for the most part, trying to establish what went wrong, as that is what their readers, not unreasonably, want to know. The Daily Hate story about an orange flash from the engine, whilst in fact spurious, did to my mind represent a sincere effort to shed light on the cause (and of course provides further evidence of journalistic laziness).
Which brings me to my second thought, which concerns risk management. The aircraft was not over Shoreham on some frolic: it was taking part in a planned event, at an authorised location, with a sanctioned display programme, a qualified pilot authorised to fly the display, and an aircraft believed to be fit for purpose. (The AAIB may differ when they investigate, but I would be surprised if any of these statements turn out to be untrue.) Part of each of the many individual approvals and authorisations which enabled the aircraft to be flying at Shoreham would be a risk assessment. Whether implicit or explicit, the process would have recognised that there were various potential risks to the successful outcome of the display, and only as a result of these risks being assessed as sufficiently low would the approvals have been granted. There could not at any stage however have been a belief that there was no risk, and in particular no belief that there was no risk that the aircraft could have an accident. In allowing an airport to operate at Shoreham, the local authority accepted the risk that there could be crashes, not just at the airfield, but inevitably in the surrounding area. In allowing there to be an air show, the local authority and the airport operators clearly accepted a higher degree of risk, and so on. Please note, I am not suggesting those killed and injured had accepted the risk, but trying to highlight that the responsibility for this accident could not solely rest with the pilot , even if it is eventually determined that his actions in some way contributed. Whatever a pilots experience, skill and judgement, displaying fast jets is a high stress, high workload activity. Humans sometimes make mistakes in such situations. As well as being entirely foreseeable, and sadly not without precedent, no risk assessment could overlook the possibility of pilot error. Should it turn out to be the case here that a mistake was made, it is very important that it is widely understood that the pilot would not be solely responsible. If the debate on Pprune can help to bring about a wider understanding of this shared responsibility, it will have served a very valuable purpose.
Firstly, I share the general distaste for the media and their methods, but in this instance have a greater measure of tolerance than usual. This is a national-scale tragedy, and there is an understandable demand for more information and understanding. Editors will have set expectations of minutes on air and column inches to be filled, and the whole machine bursts into life to deliver them. Being inherently lazy, journalists will latch on to whatever or whoever they can find to provide "content". Pprune is a source for sure, as are any "experts" who are prepared to self certify their credentials and qualifications to justify their views being given the oxygen of publicity. Enough has already been written about the various individuals and their opinions, but an early learning emerging is that there was a need for some authoritative spokesperson to front for the display "industry". BADA made a reasonable start with the statement on their website, but a statement on a website, however sensible, cannot gain traction without a face and some advocacy and willingness to address reasonable questions in a reasonable and measured way. Captain "Winkle" Brown has attracted some criticism on here for a comment attributed to him that "it looked as if it could have been pilot error". Leaving aside for a moment his credentials, and the fact that he was an eye witness, even my mother (who is not a pilot!) thinks it could have been pilot error having seen the videos on television! The videos are particularly graphic, and whilst inconclusive as to cause at this stage, we should not be naive in thinking that people would not be reaching similar views as Winkle but for the media. In fact, I do believe the media are, for the most part, trying to establish what went wrong, as that is what their readers, not unreasonably, want to know. The Daily Hate story about an orange flash from the engine, whilst in fact spurious, did to my mind represent a sincere effort to shed light on the cause (and of course provides further evidence of journalistic laziness).
Which brings me to my second thought, which concerns risk management. The aircraft was not over Shoreham on some frolic: it was taking part in a planned event, at an authorised location, with a sanctioned display programme, a qualified pilot authorised to fly the display, and an aircraft believed to be fit for purpose. (The AAIB may differ when they investigate, but I would be surprised if any of these statements turn out to be untrue.) Part of each of the many individual approvals and authorisations which enabled the aircraft to be flying at Shoreham would be a risk assessment. Whether implicit or explicit, the process would have recognised that there were various potential risks to the successful outcome of the display, and only as a result of these risks being assessed as sufficiently low would the approvals have been granted. There could not at any stage however have been a belief that there was no risk, and in particular no belief that there was no risk that the aircraft could have an accident. In allowing an airport to operate at Shoreham, the local authority accepted the risk that there could be crashes, not just at the airfield, but inevitably in the surrounding area. In allowing there to be an air show, the local authority and the airport operators clearly accepted a higher degree of risk, and so on. Please note, I am not suggesting those killed and injured had accepted the risk, but trying to highlight that the responsibility for this accident could not solely rest with the pilot , even if it is eventually determined that his actions in some way contributed. Whatever a pilots experience, skill and judgement, displaying fast jets is a high stress, high workload activity. Humans sometimes make mistakes in such situations. As well as being entirely foreseeable, and sadly not without precedent, no risk assessment could overlook the possibility of pilot error. Should it turn out to be the case here that a mistake was made, it is very important that it is widely understood that the pilot would not be solely responsible. If the debate on Pprune can help to bring about a wider understanding of this shared responsibility, it will have served a very valuable purpose.
A few more paragraph breaks would make that good post easier to read. (editor's hat now removed).
I'd like to address this part.
If you would roll in the issue of the chance for mechanical malfunction, you'd have an even better post than the good one already presented.
If the debate on PPRuNe can help to bring about a wider understanding of
this shared responsibility, it will have served a very valuable purpose.
While I agree in my heart, the amount of effort spent ducking liability is pretty common currency.
I'd like to address this part.
In allowing an airport to operate at Shoreham, the local authority accepted the risk that there could be crashes, not just at the airfield, but inevitably in the surrounding area.
In allowing there to be an air show, the local authority and the airport operators clearly accepted a higher degree of risk, and so on.
Please note, I am not suggesting those killed and injured had accepted th risk, but trying to highlight that the responsibility for this accident could not solely rest with the pilot, even if it is eventually determined that his actions in some way contributed.
Whatever a pilots experience, skill and judgment, displaying fast jets is a high stress, high workload activity. Humans sometimes make mistakes in such situations.
In allowing there to be an air show, the local authority and the airport operators clearly accepted a higher degree of risk, and so on.
Please note, I am not suggesting those killed and injured had accepted th risk, but trying to highlight that the responsibility for this accident could not solely rest with the pilot, even if it is eventually determined that his actions in some way contributed.
Whatever a pilots experience, skill and judgment, displaying fast jets is a high stress, high workload activity. Humans sometimes make mistakes in such situations.
As well as being entirely foreseeable, and sadly not without precedent, no risk assessment could overlook the possibility of pilot error. Should it turn out to be the case here that a mistake was made, it is very important that it is widely understood that the pilot would not be solely responsible.
If the debate on PPRuNe can help to bring about a wider understanding of
this shared responsibility, it will have served a very valuable purpose.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN
Two of theses items are in fact correct. In common with most of the Hunter 7&8s it was originally a Hunter F4 until it was converted to T7 standard by adding the two-seat nose section.
In the case in point the aircraft has been a WW 2 Hawker Hunter Mk 4 or was it Mk 6, was modified from a single seater to two-seats and had reheat. One of those items is correct.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at post 177
Drink driving is a crime. You have a criminal record, but you are correct that not all offences are crimes. Dropping litter may be an offence but its not a crime.
Drink driving is a crime. You have a criminal record, but you are correct that not all offences are crimes. Dropping litter may be an offence but its not a crime.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,887
Received 2,826 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Copied over from the flypast forum
So if you were there, please help.
AAIB & Police appeal for Shoreham video or stills
Two requests:
1) If you witnessed the accident at the Shoreham airshow on Saturday 22 August 2015 you may contact the AAIB using our [email protected] email address.
We are particularly interested in any photos and videos that you may have taken showing the accident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Anybody with pictures or video of Saturday's crash is asked to contact Sussex Police via this dedicated e-mail please.
[email protected]
JUST PROVIDE A NAME AND CONTACT NUMBER, DO NOT ATTACH THE FOOTAGE.
Two requests:
1) If you witnessed the accident at the Shoreham airshow on Saturday 22 August 2015 you may contact the AAIB using our [email protected] email address.
We are particularly interested in any photos and videos that you may have taken showing the accident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Anybody with pictures or video of Saturday's crash is asked to contact Sussex Police via this dedicated e-mail please.
[email protected]
JUST PROVIDE A NAME AND CONTACT NUMBER, DO NOT ATTACH THE FOOTAGE.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
falcon900
falcon900, good post. The BIG question here is not necessarily about why an aircraft crashed, it is about why 11 people on the ground were killed.
I'll take your organisers risk assessment discussion one step further - does the regulator need to have a close look at it's role in air displays? Indeed, the very fact they commenced a review of their procedures only 24hrs after the crash indicates that they understand the need to look much further than the actions of the pilot and the airworthiness of the aircraft (something that AAIB will clearly sweep-up).
To me, this accident and it's impact most certainly wasn't brought about by a single point of failure; to follow the traditional route and focus on the pilot's actions would be the most inappropriate course of action for us to follow.
I'll take your organisers risk assessment discussion one step further - does the regulator need to have a close look at it's role in air displays? Indeed, the very fact they commenced a review of their procedures only 24hrs after the crash indicates that they understand the need to look much further than the actions of the pilot and the airworthiness of the aircraft (something that AAIB will clearly sweep-up).
To me, this accident and it's impact most certainly wasn't brought about by a single point of failure; to follow the traditional route and focus on the pilot's actions would be the most inappropriate course of action for us to follow.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Arrows at Dartmouth Royal Regatta 2015
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is undertaking a comprehensive review of civilian air displays in the UK.
As part of this, in the last 48 hours, the CAA has amended the display permissions for the Dartmouth Royal Regatta. This affects all participants including the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, the Red Arrows - scheduled to perform at the event tomorrow (Friday, August 28) at 1815.
It has been assessed that the required changes to display heights and positioning would have reduced the visual quality of the display for the public to an unacceptable level and therefore, with regret, the Red Arrows’ will not be conducting a full display at Dartmouth this year.
The Red Arrows recognise many people will have made plans and are looking forward to seeing the team perform. Not wanting to disappoint the public, the team will, instead, conduct two flypasts – not involving aerobatics – at the Dartmouth Royal Regatta, weather-permitting.
The decision does not affect the planned display at Clacton Airshow, scheduled for 1245 tomorrow (August 28).
All aspects of flying by the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team – wherever the Red Arrows are operating – is carried out subject to rigorous and well-established aviation safety rules.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is undertaking a comprehensive review of civilian air displays in the UK.
As part of this, in the last 48 hours, the CAA has amended the display permissions for the Dartmouth Royal Regatta. This affects all participants including the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, the Red Arrows - scheduled to perform at the event tomorrow (Friday, August 28) at 1815.
It has been assessed that the required changes to display heights and positioning would have reduced the visual quality of the display for the public to an unacceptable level and therefore, with regret, the Red Arrows’ will not be conducting a full display at Dartmouth this year.
The Red Arrows recognise many people will have made plans and are looking forward to seeing the team perform. Not wanting to disappoint the public, the team will, instead, conduct two flypasts – not involving aerobatics – at the Dartmouth Royal Regatta, weather-permitting.
The decision does not affect the planned display at Clacton Airshow, scheduled for 1245 tomorrow (August 28).
All aspects of flying by the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team – wherever the Red Arrows are operating – is carried out subject to rigorous and well-established aviation safety rules.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well said F900 and CGB. The main issue here really is why 11 people on the ground were killed. Whilst not wishing to foretell the AAIB investigation, it is clear that it is going to identify many failings - the classics of many accidents.
It is also good to see that things are already changing and that displays are being reassessed. I don't think that this is a case of being risk averse, more a case of being risk aware. The risks of displaying vintage aircraft like the Hunter and the Gnat are real and all those involved with organising such displays need to be aware of the risks and how to manage/mitigate/eliminate such risks. Sat Driver gave an excellent summary of acceptance of risk for the different parties involved. I wonder how many display organisers are truly aware of this?
As I said in an earlier post, this tragedy was avoidable.
S-D
It is also good to see that things are already changing and that displays are being reassessed. I don't think that this is a case of being risk averse, more a case of being risk aware. The risks of displaying vintage aircraft like the Hunter and the Gnat are real and all those involved with organising such displays need to be aware of the risks and how to manage/mitigate/eliminate such risks. Sat Driver gave an excellent summary of acceptance of risk for the different parties involved. I wonder how many display organisers are truly aware of this?
As I said in an earlier post, this tragedy was avoidable.
S-D
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Regarding the 6 that were modified, did that include the subject aircraft?
Either way , the way it read in the media was that it was a recent (post-service) cut and shut job.
A couple of sources confirm 372's history:
Originally Posted by AtomKraft
WV372 was built as an F.4 in 1955.
Converted into a T.7 in 1959
Flew as a civilian a/c in 1998.
Converted into a T.7 in 1959
Flew as a civilian a/c in 1998.
Originally Posted by Thunder and Lightnings website
WV372 was built as an F.4 and first flew on 15th July 1955. Delivered to 222(F) Squadron on 2nd September 1955, around a year later her rear fuselage was badly damaged by an in-flight fire caused by hot exhaust gases escaping when the jetpipe detached from the engine. Returned to Hawkers, she was repaired and converted to a T.7 and returned to the RAF (5 MU) on May 1959. She went on to serve with the RAF Jever and Gutersloh Station Flights, II(AC) Squadron (in whose colours she ended her civilian flying career) and 4 FTS. After retirement she was one of Jet Heritage's airworthy Hunters and carried out one of her first public displays in 1998. Since then the aircraft has changed hands several times, having been owned by the Fox One consortium (based at Kemble), then Conciair Ltd and then Hunter Flying (based for some time at Exeter, and part of the short-lived Team Viper display team, before moving to their new base at St. Athan). She was put up for sale once, ending up based with new owners at North Weald and returned to the airshow circuit. Sadly on 22nd August 2015 she crashed at the Shoreham Airshow, impacting a busy road junction and causing multiple ground fatalities - the first in the UK since 1952 due in no small part to the strict safety regime put in place by the Civil Aviation Authority. As an immediate result, Hunter flying has been temporarily banned and high energy aerobatic manouevres by vintage jets over land have been banned too. At the time of writing pilot Andy Hill is fighting for his life in hospital.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salad-Dodger
The main issue here really is why 11 people on the ground were killed. Whilst not wishing to foretell the AAIB investigation, it is clear that it is going to identify many failings - the classics of many accidents.
It is also good to see that things are already changing and that displays are being reassessed. I don't think that this is a case of being risk averse, more a case of being risk aware. The risks of displaying vintage aircraft like the Hunter and the Gnat are real and all those involved with organising such displays need to be aware of the risks and how to manage/mitigate/eliminate such risks. Sat Driver gave an excellent summary of acceptance of risk for the different parties involved. I wonder how many display organisers are truly aware of this?
As I said in an earlier post, this tragedy was avoidable.
The main issue here really is why 11 people on the ground were killed. Whilst not wishing to foretell the AAIB investigation, it is clear that it is going to identify many failings - the classics of many accidents.
It is also good to see that things are already changing and that displays are being reassessed. I don't think that this is a case of being risk averse, more a case of being risk aware. The risks of displaying vintage aircraft like the Hunter and the Gnat are real and all those involved with organising such displays need to be aware of the risks and how to manage/mitigate/eliminate such risks. Sat Driver gave an excellent summary of acceptance of risk for the different parties involved. I wonder how many display organisers are truly aware of this?
As I said in an earlier post, this tragedy was avoidable.