Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But all the indications are that the loop started at below 500 ft, why, what was the margin for error?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the AAIB report:
I'm curious what the general view is of currency and the applicability of experience on other aircraft.
Of course, private flying of this nature is not the same intensity as the Red Arrows and the hours accumulated during front-line training of fast jet pilots is required to maintain currency across many skills. So I wouldn't expect to see 10-20 hours/month on the Hunter. Especially given how expensive it would be!
I hesitate to post this as I'm not seeking to add to the second guessing. It's more a high-level question to the experienced pilots who've bounced around between types about how easy it is to get in to an aircraft and fly it in a moderately demanding way (i.e. more than just a ferry/pleasure flight). Even if you're accumulating a lot of hours on other aircraft during the same period.
[edit] If the answer to this question could just add to the controversy, please ignore.
From the pilot’s electronic logbook, it was established that the pilot had flown a total of 40.25 hours in the Hunter since 26 May 2011, of which 9.7 hours had been flown in the last 90 days and 2.1 hours in the last 28 days.
Of course, private flying of this nature is not the same intensity as the Red Arrows and the hours accumulated during front-line training of fast jet pilots is required to maintain currency across many skills. So I wouldn't expect to see 10-20 hours/month on the Hunter. Especially given how expensive it would be!
I hesitate to post this as I'm not seeking to add to the second guessing. It's more a high-level question to the experienced pilots who've bounced around between types about how easy it is to get in to an aircraft and fly it in a moderately demanding way (i.e. more than just a ferry/pleasure flight). Even if you're accumulating a lot of hours on other aircraft during the same period.
[edit] If the answer to this question could just add to the controversy, please ignore.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Agion Oros
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this display would have been regulated within the display authorisation, can I kindly ask if the DA profile was not met.
But, also as professional pilots we apply margin in terms of take off and landing performance.
Why is there denial that on this occasion, that the pilot got it wrong>
But, also as professional pilots we apply margin in terms of take off and landing performance.
Why is there denial that on this occasion, that the pilot got it wrong>
Concerning "margins for error": what is the margin for error for identifying the maneuver as a loop. A loop is done in pitch axis only and the tragic maneuver included pitch and roll. So given that you don't know what the intended maneuver was, how can anyone judge what the margins were, much less which ones were violated?
Re: margins. regardless of nit picking again over the 1/4 clover it did start from 200ft, which was 300ft below the height given in the DA.
In the news today, top of loop was 2600 ft at 100kts, fine in a BAe Bulldog, even Neil McCarthy, PPL JP3 and Hunter (?) display pilot, has stated it was a bit low and slow.
Apparently no defects in the AAIB report, so I guess the pilot screwed up, despite his experience.
Apparently no defects in the AAIB report, so I guess the pilot screwed up, despite his experience.
The accident flight was recorded by the NATS radar facility at Pease Pottage. The maximum altitude recorded during the final manoeuvre was 2,600 ft amsl (recorded by Heathrow radar), which may not reflect the peak altitude achieved because the radar data was not continuous.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is there denial that on this occasion, that the pilot got it wrong>
Hmmmm, almost more questions than answers. It seems strange that the aircraft only achieved "2600 ft" at 100kts. Obviously there was no energy left to go higher. However, the same aircraft is seen, in previous film, easily making similar manoeuvres. It seems strange that, apparently having video of the instruments, no mention of engine parameters or altimeter indications is made? No mention of, what surely must be known, "gates" and, a strange declaration of the take-off being longer than usual "probably due to conditions"! Come-on, if it was due to conditions it was NOT longer than usual! It was either longer than it should have been or it was not!
OAP
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 4th Sep 2015 at 19:11. Reason: speeling
The word "Interim" in the title "Interim Report" is a pretty big hint that the AAIB will "Come-on".
Have some patience whilst they do their job.
(As Chris Scott notes on a subsequent page, it's not an Interim Report - it's a Special Bulletin. The point about patience stands, though.)
Have some patience whilst they do their job.
(As Chris Scott notes on a subsequent page, it's not an Interim Report - it's a Special Bulletin. The point about patience stands, though.)
Last edited by BossEyed; 5th Sep 2015 at 16:02. Reason: SB not IR
Also, OAP, perhaps you should re-read your post. As you say, the interim report suggests that the take-off may have been longer than usual because of conditions. It does not say anything about its
As always, the wording of such reports, whether interim or final, is very carefully chosen. Perhaps we should all follow that example?
airsound
being longer than it should have been
airsound
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Darlington
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB will 'come-on' in time but in terms of the departure from North Weald the take off performance of the Hunter T.7 is known and the runway state and weather is also known. Even at this early stage they should have been able to state categorically whether it was a normal take off or not and not hedge it with the word 'probably'.
I read the diagram in the report/bulletin as the tick marks showing the "every six seconds" radar returns. Six seconds of flying can include some corrections, so the altitude at entry may not be 200', but another value. Won't guess as to what AH saw on the altimeter at the point of 'initiate the maneuver."
The radar track isn't the same as a continuous ground track display.
It commenced a gentle climbing right turn to 1,600 ft amsl, executing a Derry turn to the left and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about 45º. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left, becoming almost fully inverted at the apex of the manoeuvre at a height of approximately 2,600 ft amsl.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th Sep 2015 at 13:22. Reason: ensure that bulletin is included, as it is not a report yet
"Now is the time for the bereaved families to contact their lawyers and send them in the interim report. Get the ball bowling as it were."
If this was in the USA, all the families would need to do is be within a few feet of their phones. The ambulance-chasers would initiate the process and contact them.
If this was in the USA, all the families would need to do is be within a few feet of their phones. The ambulance-chasers would initiate the process and contact them.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the AAIB have also got the HD professional video that was taken of the flypast and the maneuver by PlanesTV (the one that was pirated and on You Tube before it was blocked for copyright violations). The AAIB are pretty sure on some basics, they still need time to work out the exact train of events and parameters and to confirm nothing else was amiss.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It commenced a gentle climbing right turn to 1,600 ft amsl, executing a Derry turn to the left and then commenced a descending left turn to 200 ft amsl, approaching the display line at an angle of about 45º. The aircraft then pitched up into a manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left, becoming almost fully inverted at the apex of the manoeuvre at a height of approximately 2,600 ft amsl. (emphasis added)
Edited to add: I think when you look at the CAP403 definition of "standard" aerobatic figures it would appear that you can not fly a 1/4 clover within that categorisation because turns have to be in "normal flight" and loops have to be circular with normal entry and exit.
Last edited by Pittsextra; 4th Sep 2015 at 21:05.
Always conjecture as to where 'the' manoeuvre starts, but it is perfectly acceptable to complete a flypast at 100ft and ease up into the next manoeuvre even if it is a loop. It therefore does not follow that the loop was started from 100ft.
That said, the 'easing up' into the manoeuvre clearly has to be allowed for and not flown at maximum performance. The slight loss of energy in this 'easing up' also has to be catered for. Are we really expecting a displaying aircraft to climb up from a perfectly safe 100ft flypast to achieve 500ft, level off, then commence a loop?
Similar when you have to take off from a runway within the 230 line - you ease into the display complying with the AoB v height limitations; you're therefore not guilty of breaking the 230 line limitation.
That said, the 'easing up' into the manoeuvre clearly has to be allowed for and not flown at maximum performance. The slight loss of energy in this 'easing up' also has to be catered for. Are we really expecting a displaying aircraft to climb up from a perfectly safe 100ft flypast to achieve 500ft, level off, then commence a loop?
Similar when you have to take off from a runway within the 230 line - you ease into the display complying with the AoB v height limitations; you're therefore not guilty of breaking the 230 line limitation.
