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, 21:16
  #641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
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
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 48
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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  
Old 4th Sep 2015, 23:08
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good point Chris. I have amended my last post.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 05:57
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cardiff
Age: 80
Posts: 65
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
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
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
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 online now  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 08:06
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
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
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GOC
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,447
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
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 online now  
Old 5th Sep 2015, 12:22
  #656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
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
  #657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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
  #658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
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 online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.