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 12th Sep 2015, 17:57
  #741 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 87
Posts: 2,206
CM

Please check you PMs

Ta JF
John Farley is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 22:41
  #742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Done, John. Thank you too.

Sorry, been off line for a while after the storms in this corner of France. Power finally restored.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 13:31
  #743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 476
That'll learn you Courtney - weather in Bucks has been fine and dandy!

No, you can't come back, you'll have to join the queue with the rest of the migrants!

PS. (Depsite the banter, hope things are now Ok?)
iRaven is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 13:57
  #744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Thanks, Raven. All good here now!
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 14:58
  #745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,739
Might the pilot be prosecuted?

I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft, instead of 500ft authorised for the display. If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 16:06
  #746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: england
Age: 86
Posts: 17
500 feet

[QUOTE=Trim Stab;9115209]I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft, instead of 500ft authorised for the display. If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?[/QUOTE

Let's hope that he was not guilty of an entry below his 500 feet gate.
Maybug is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 16:54
  #747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
This has been done to death already.....

My apologies, it was on the other thread.

I've never displayed as a civvy, but my understanding from what people are saying is that in civvy displaying it is acceptable, and normal, to begin a manoeuver from a flypast at 100-200' as long as the pitch up does not pass 30 degrees nose-up before the aircraft reaches the authorised height of 500' in this case.

This is purely what I have read on the other thread, rather than any first hand knowledge.

Last edited by Tourist; 13th Sep 2015 at 17:02. Reason: To add apology/explanation
Tourist is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 16:54
  #748 (permalink)  
R4H
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Experts

Coroner's Court, lawyers, AAIB, police etc. Let's leave it to the experts to decide on manoeuvres, errors or not, liability, etc etc etc. Rumours Network is fine but Speculation Network on such sensitive issues!
R4H is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 17:02
  #749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 540
Tourist.

A very unfortunate turn of phrase...
betty swallox is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 21:48
  #750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Sorry, I have remained silent too long.

Originally Posted by trim stab
I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft, instead of 500ft authorised for the display. If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?
You should know better than to post inflammatory stuff like that. If, if if. I could say more, but if you don't get it now my words will not help. I expected better. Maybe delete your message and I'll delete my reference to it.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 22:39
  #751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 21
Sorry, I have remained silent too long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trim stab
I have read allegations that the pilot began his manoeuvre at 200ft, instead of 500ft authorised for the display. If this is true, and it is shown to have contributed or caused the crash, might the pilot end up facing involuntary manslaughter charges?
You should know better than to post inflammatory stuff like that. If, if if. I could say more, but if you don't get it now my words will not help. I expected better. Maybe delete your message and I'll delete my reference to it.
It doesn't seem like an unreasonable question Courtney. I suspect that more than one person or groups of people will find themselves facing charges over this one.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 22:57
  #752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
But no point in promoting such ideas on the Internet. And thanks for copying and pasting the thought again. It's not the question that's the probloblem, it's repeated reference to entry height, among other things. You all seem very certain of prescribed "gates". You do not know the entry height (gate?) for the manoeuvre so stop quoting it as if you all do.

That's all I have to say about that.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 23:52
  #753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
CMil you are right. There is a miscomprehention around minimum fly by altitude and minimum aerobatic altitude. Convert to "agl" or "qfe" as you need. The run in was legal according to current regs and there is allowance for pulling up from there into a defined aerobatic manouver.

I could care less what some of the woodworms here think but they should at least get their facts right.
APG63 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 01:35
  #754 (permalink)  
O-P
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
CM, APG63,

100%

Get well soon AH. Last post on this thread until you get better, which I hope is soon.

SD

You are allowed to do a flypast at 200', at some point after that event you have to climb to 500' to complete a vertical display...Is it that point... I'll stop.
O-P is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 06:32
  #755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,739
But no point in promoting such ideas on the Internet. And thanks for copying and pasting the thought again. It's not the question that's the probloblem, it's repeated reference to entry height, among other things. You all seem very certain of prescribed "gates". You do not know the entry height (gate?) for the manoeuvre so stop quoting it as if you all do.

That's all I have to say about that.
I never made any mention of "gates". I merely asked whether prosecution could follow if it were established that he had flown the display outside the authorised limits.

I don't know offhand of any precedents where a pilot has been prosecuted for deaths on the ground.

I am not "promoting" the idea - the police and CPS are not going to be the slightest bit swayed by comments on the internet.

I realise that some people on here probably know the pilot so are emotionally involved. I am sorry if my question is offensive to you.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 06:40
  #756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,739
You are allowed to do a flypast at 200', at some point after that event you have to climb to 500' to complete a vertical display...Is it that point... I'll stop.
How is the start of the vertical display defined? Do you have to be level at 500' at the correct entry speed? Or is it acceptable to be pitched nose up and still climbing through 500'? I read on another forum that the latter is acceptable within a 30 degree nose up limit - but then what is the correct entry speed? Are these all defined in the display authorisation, or are they "unwritten" rules?
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 06:43
  #757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Excuse me if I'm missing something, but isn't an entry gate a bit irrelevant for a high performance jet anyway?

Surely a hunter could come in at 600Kts/100' and just zoom climb with a slow pitch up into a 5000' top of loop gate anyway and then finish the manoeuver with thousands of feet to spare?

Even a Firefly had enough power to climb during aeros.
Tourist is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 07:01
  #758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,670
Was the inquiry into the loss of the RNHF's Firefly WB271, at a Duxford air show in 2003 ever released?

There's nothing in the AAIB archives.
BEagle is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 07:18
  #759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,739
Excuse me if I'm missing something, but isn't an entry gate a bit irrelevant for a high performance jet anyway?
That's not the issue here. The issue is whether the display authorisation limits were breached. If the limits are very clearly defined in writing (including the distinction between a normal vertical manoeuvre and one commenced from a low fly past), and the pilot is proven to have knowingly breached them, then I suspect there will be a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter. If there is no clear definition of minimum altitudes and speeds to enter the manoeuvre in the display authorisation then I doubt that the CPS would prosecute, because there is no precedent to do so (though no doubt the CAA would be advised to tighten up the wording of the limitations for future display authorisations, if an inappropriate entry configuration was the cause of the incident). Of course, if it is shown to be a technical issue, or pilot error during the manoeuvre, then there would be no prosecution.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 07:37
  #760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 350/3 Compton
Age: 72
Posts: 284
BE,

I think you will find that the Firefly investigation was carried out by the RN, not AAIB and was therefore probably Restricted.
Mogwi 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.