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, 23:08
  #641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,093
Several of you have been referring to today's AAIB publication as an Interim Report. I think it's worth pointing out that it is a Special Bulletin; hence its brevity at 7 pages. If the AAIB later publishes an Interim Report (ahead of the Final Report) it will be considerably longer and much more detailed.

Quote from salad-dodger:
"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."

"I think" that is an unnecessary and inappropriate slur to aircrew generally, and particularly inappropriate at this stage of an investigation into a tragedy involving so many fatalities. This is a forum primarily for aircrew, which I assume you are not. Making comparisons with the medical profession is irrelevant because its members rarely suffer death or injury during and/or as a result of their practice. To refer to pilots as a "closed shop" is ridiculous. In fact, pilots' strongest critics tend, in my experience, to be other pilots.

Last edited by Chris Scott; 4th Sep 2015 at 23:23. Reason: Two paragraphs added
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 23:12
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 44
Good point Chris. I have amended my last post.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 05:57
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cardiff
Age: 76
Posts: 50
Whilst I agree with CS regards second guessing the outcome of the AAIB i feel he should be reminded that this forum is for:-

"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".
Mickj3 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 07:09
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,701
salad-dodger wrote:
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.
This is a load of hoop which first emerged after the fatal accident to ZE982. In that event, the pilot hadn't flown low level overland for 2 months and was manoeuvring a heavy F3 at low level. He had only averaged 12 hours per month on the F3 since first flying it, including his OCU course. But he also flew light aircraft.

The article in Air Clues states
For example, if a pilot is on the currency limit for their aircraft type but has been flying another type more recently, perhaps they (and their supervisors) should consider a sim trip before they get airborne?
Pilots like to fly! If the RAF cannot afford to give them more than a handful of hours per month, such that they're at their recency on type limit, it's hardly surprising that some pilots will look for other opportunities. But blaming light aircraft flying as inciting cognitive failures, particularly without any proof, is wholly unreasonable.

The Hunter pilot met all experience and recency requirements. End of!
BEagle is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 07:11
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,839
salad-dodger

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...
IMHO (knowing AH's background) in the specific areas of suitability for selection and general experience I suspect the AAIB won't find any similarity at all between the two accidents.

That said I'm also well aware those with experience are capable of making mistakes and/or being the victim of a malfunction.
wiggy is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 08:06
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,990
BEagle

I agree. There have been quite a few F3 mates flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, Dakota, Lancaster and Chippies when at Coningsby without an issue. The difference being that when at Coningsby the average mate was getting 18-20hrs per month, but at Leuchars in the F3's twilight years that had dropped down to a measily 12 or so. I agree that flying light aircraft or any other type of aircraft should have little bearing on flying a fast jet if they have had lots of recency/continuity.

On another note, the AAIB report mentions taking an 8 kt tailwind for take off - filled to the gunnels with fuel this will certainly extend your take off roll! Anyone know if the runway taken (RWY02) was a short cut to reduce engine running time (s)? Seems to me an odd thing to do if you don't have to?

LJ

PS. Having read the AAIB piece I still stand by my post #540 as to my deduction on what happened "to me I think it was a factor of a modified 1/4 clover and then an oblique pull through that meant that the normal gate height would probably have been too low. Normally a 1/4 clover would be from 90 degs from the crowdline but the position of Lancing and Lancing College make this difficult."
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 08:44
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 44
Chris S, you are right, I am not aircrew. My profile is clear that I am an engineer. I have worked in military and civil aviation all my life and latterly (>15 years) in airworthiness and safety. I think that means that I qualify for this forum. There are aspects of this thread that do come across as people closing ranks. this was particularly so in the early pages.

The AAIB Special Bulletin alludes to issues that are common in many accidents. I have little doubt that several issues I suggested will feature and that we will see changes to relations. As BEagle points out, the pilot met the currency requirements. The next question should be whether those requirements are sufficient for this type of activity? On the face of it, 40hrs on type over 4 years seems very little.

Wiggy, you will also note that I referred to supervision, management, currency, etc.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 09:59
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GOC
Posts: 27
Lightning Loops

Digressing to the Lightning, low level solo display loops were flown all the way round in max reheat, pulling more or sometimes less g to control speed and shape. Safe aerodynamic control and a modicum of airfield positioning came way ahead of the impossible desire of achieving a truly round loop.
Let me preface my comments to the above quote (Post #596) by saying that, in my view, this is irrelevant to the Hunter display at Shoreham.
This may well be how bigglesbrother displayed the Lightning, and it certainly makes for the tightest manoeuvre. I have seen a number of Lightning displays flown in this manner and told one of the pilots that I hoped his faith in Rolls Royce was not misplaced. The downside is that any loss of thrust in the last quarter of the loop has the unavoidable consequence of busting base height. My preference was to use max chat for the first quarter, ease the pull to increase speed and height over the top, reduce power during the third quarter and fly down to base height increasing to full burner on completion. This technique also worked well on the Phantom.
essdee is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 10:41
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,442
S-D

Beagle has beaten me to it but I would also like to point out that AH's airline flying has been Airbus for many years and there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you could confuse operating an Airbus with polling a Hunter around so I would suggest cognitive errors are a red herring.
Megaton is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 11:31
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Just to add to that, in my experience cognitive errors are more common on similar types rather than dissimilar.

At one point the RN was a little twitched that I was flying Rotary and Fixed wing simultaneously, but it never caused me any problems.

At an earlier point I flew different versions of the same aircraft. One single pilot and one twin.
That, I found tricky on occasion.
Tourist is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 11:45
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,839
S-D

Wiggy, you will also note that I referred to supervision, management, currency, etc.
I didn't miss that, I simply chose to comment specifically about selection and AH's experience (over his career).. I haven't a clue about the rest..

Last edited by wiggy; 5th Sep 2015 at 15:22.
wiggy is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 12:22
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,990
The only problem I've ever had between poling different types was flying a flexwing microlight - pushing forwward for the flare just doesn't feel quite right!!!

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 13:11
  #653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,093
Hello salad-dodger,

Thanks for your response. The only part of your post that I objected to was the penultimate paragraph I quoted. The rest of it raises/summarises some valid discussion points.

No occupation comes under greater, constant scrutiny - not to mention media attention when things go wrong - than professional flight crew. In the midnight hours, I inferred that you were either a phishing journalist or someone with a grudge against aircrew. it is evident now that my assumption was wrong, but I still reject your allegation against the pilot profession, which you patronisingly described as a "vocal minority" [of] "pilots defending pilots", likening them to a "closed shop".

Quote from Mickj3:
Whilst I agree with CS regards second guessing the outcome of the AAIB i feel he should be reminded that this forum is for:-

"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".

Yes, and I'm not even ex-military! The forum I was referring to was PPRuNe as a whole, which I believe is primarily an aircrew forum. That is not to suggest that we do not need to be informed and challenged by ground crew and everyone else involved in the science, technology and business of making aircraft fly. I was at Dunsfold last weekend, and the most enjoyable and informative conversation I had was with a line-maintenance engineer (on a non-Hunter topic).
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 15:16
  #654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
I must say that throughout my considerable military aviation career it has been my experience that aircrew are more openly critical of each other than in any other group of people I have experienced. Quite rightly so and understandable when one considers how often we depended upon each other for our longevity.
soddim is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 15:18
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 353
He had only averaged 12 hours per month on the F3 since first flying it
From a lay perspective, that seems appallingly little practice for someone who's supposed to be a professional doing complicated, risky work in a modern and well-funded military. I spend more time than that eating lunch.

P
Phil_R is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 15:29
  #656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,839
Re the 12 hours and:

From a lay perspective, that seems appallingly little practice for someone who's supposed to be a professional doing complicated, risky work in a modern and well-funded military.
FWIW I seem to have hazy memories of something like 15 hours a month being the NATO requirement/norm way back when I was squadron stats officer on a fast jet squadron 30 plus years ago...

I spend more time than that eating lunch.
I'll refrain from further comment
wiggy is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 16:11
  #657 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,712
Phil, that is why they have simulators.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 17:01
  #658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 349
Multi types

Salad Dodger
has opinions about the RAF's attitude to multi types, not so
We were encouraged to fly the chipmunk from squadrons for the ATC and at RAE Bedford we could easily fly several types in one day. I understand that as the Buc had no two seaters for squadrons the hunter was usually used for check flights
I found in practice there was no problem if the types were very dissimilar but if you flew two that had similar configurations, say the Varsity or Devon and the Dack, it was easy to get the speed limits mixed up so special care was needed but with that extra care, and a supervisors warning there was no problem
Tinribs is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 17:19
  #659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,097
I think this suggests that this panel took a differing view:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...y_part_1_4.pdf

page 19 relates:-

The panel concluded that there was a plausible link between the amount of low level F3 training, competency checking and the Pilots light-ac flying experience that may have contributed to the accident
I think it was the use of rudder that was of focus.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 17:57
  #660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 659
Pittsextra,

"... may have contributed to the accident". It was the panels opinion and if you read this report carefully I am sure you will agree that the postulations regarding use of rudder are not a typical control strategy in any aircraft. Therefore, did the panel really have the experience and knowledge to be qualified to comment on multi-typing or light aircraft flying?

To all of you who persistently pontificate about multi-typing:

I have flown multiple types of aircraft under military regulation plus civilian types for many years and still do. Even as a first tourist 35 years ago I was current on 3 types. 9 mil reg types at one time was probably the most during a couple of tours (plus about half a dozen civilian types). There is a lot of total BS written about multi-typing by those who have never done it or don't understand how to do it safely. There is a specific discipline in being able to multi-type safely and it needs to be discussed, taught, mentored and supervised. But it CAN be done safely if performed correctly although there are limits which need to be respected.

On the subject of multi-typing there appears to be a lot of 'why remain silent and be thought of as a fool when you can open your mouth and remove all reasonable doubt'. Rant over.
LOMCEVAK 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.