Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

Old 4th Sep 2015, 18:39
  #621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Agion Oros
Posts: 157
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>
athonite is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 18:42
  #622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
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?
Yes it is interesting that the intended display hasn't formed part of the report given that they suggest they know he practiced it at least once in the last 90 days.

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.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 18:47
  #623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,578
Originally Posted by athonite View Post
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.
From the interim report/bulletin linked by our PPRuNe colleague stratofreighter (thank you, sir)f:
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.
The radar returns are noted in the report as having a 6s refresh. The estimate is 2600', but it may turn out on further anaylsis to be another value ... we shall see.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 18:47
  #624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Why is there denial that on this occasion, that the pilot got it wrong>
It seems to me no one is "denying" anything. There are however lots of people here who refuse to SPECULATE about what might or might not have gone wrong and have a strong preference for keeping such speculations out of this forum. There are many other forums where one may speculate to your heart's content.
KenV is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 18:48
  #625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
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

Last edited by Onceapilot; 4th Sep 2015 at 19:11. Reason: speeling
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:02
  #626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Come-on
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.)

Last edited by BossEyed; 5th Sep 2015 at 16:02. Reason: SB not IR
BossEyed is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:09
  #627 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 911
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
being longer than it should have been
As always, the wording of such reports, whether interim or final, is very carefully chosen. Perhaps we should all follow that example?

airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:10
  #628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Darlington
Posts: 36
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'.
Monsun is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:13
  #629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 926
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.
Hangarshuffle is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:18
  #630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,578
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."
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 45. 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.
The radar track isn't the same as a continuous ground track display.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th Sep 2015 at 13:22. Reason: ensure that bulletin is included, as it is not a report yet
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:21
  #631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 70
Posts: 544
"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.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:26
  #632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
airsound, sorry but I stand by my interpretation as being correct.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:28
  #633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
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.
Alber Ratman is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 19:30
  #634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
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 45. 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)
I would like to point out that the Interim Report did not speculate that this maneuver was or was intended to be a 1/4 clover. It was simply a "manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left."
KenV is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 20:35
  #635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
I would like to point out that the Interim Report did not speculate that this maneuver was or was intended to be a 1/4 clover. It was simply a "manoeuvre with both a vertical component and roll to the left."
Wow - ok. On the basis that he needs to have completed the sequence beforehand and on the basis that any figure needs to be understood and repeatable (otherwise how does the pilot or observer know what is to be flown - and flown safely) it has to be something. I called it a 1/4 clover, what do you call it? We could say that a 1/4 clover is a figure with vertical and rolling component - especially when you enter on the A axis and exit on the B axis...

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.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 20:55
  #636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 505
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.
H Peacock is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 21:16
  #637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
I called it a 1/4 clover, what do you call it?
I call it a maneuver with a vertical pitching component and roll to the left. I have no idea what the pilot meant it to be and will not speculate. As for the aircraft entering "on the A axis and exiting on the B axis", I see no evidence of an exit on a B axis. And wishing to avoid another pointless long back and forth, I will terminate this exchange here.
KenV is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 21:21
  #638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,097
Ken you are a crazy guy. There is a graphic in the AAIB report that shows the axis change - as of course it will if you add some aileron. I call it A and B axis for brevity but the start axis is almost 90deg off the point of accident.

You know I don't mind or care if you want to engage or not but it's a bit rich calling things wild speculation when a lot of items are very plain.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 21:59
  #639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 45
Posts: 155
Pitts you might want to check you axes... The manoeuvre was started at a slight tangent to the B axis (heading towards the crowdline.)
Fluffy Bunny is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 22:14
  #640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 21
The AAIB’s Special Bulletin appears not to say a great deal, but when one reads between the lines I think it also tells us a great deal.
  • The pilot had only 40 hours on type. Perhaps others could comment on how many hours a military pilot would be likely to have on type before being allowed too conduct a display like this in front of and next to the public.
  • The pilot (an airline pilot) flew to North Weald in a light aircraft – I believe the RAF has major concerns over cognitive errors associated with pilots flying such different types of aircraft.
  • The report refers to the time on type in the last 28 and 90 days and that displays had been flown in other types. It also confirms that the pilot had the met the requirement to have flown the display sequence at least 3 times and once in the last 90 days.
  • The AAIB don’t seem to have been able to compare the actual flight path on the day against either a planned/documented or authorised display.
  • The report makes the point (twice) that the aircraft was fuelled with a full fuel load. I don’t know whether it makes a difference for this type of manoeuvre in the Hunter. Perhaps an experienced Hunter pilot can comment. The report also comments on the extended take off roll.
  • The report has commented on the seeming absence of abnormal indications and that the aircraft seemed to be responding correctly to control inputs.
  • Others have comments on the apparently low max height achieved and low minimum airspeed at the top of the manoeuvre.

As I have said before, I suspect that the AAIB will find many similarities between this accident and the recent Gnat accident at CarFest – aspects such as pilot selection, experience (including type), training, supervision, management, currency, etc, etc. This interim report just confirms my fears. We haven't even really started to discuss the 'system' (or lack of) which allowed this display to take place where it did.

I think we all know which way this is going, but dare not say so for fear of offending the vocal minority - pilots defending pilots. Not unlike the closed shop that the GMC is often criticised about.

The scale of this tragedy was very easily avoidable.

S-D

Last edited by salad-dodger; 4th Sep 2015 at 23:12.
salad-dodger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.